how to copyright?

[Just_Lucas]

Hi all i was wondering how do you copyright your own images do you do it on Photoshop or do you have somebody do it? thanks Lucas

[jerslice]

The copyright, as I understand it, is conferred to you simply by snapping the shutter. In order to add it in to the photos metadata, it can depend on the camera you have, but most cameras have the ability for you to enter your name into the camera which automatically enters it into the metadeta. As for photoshop, I think you do it, but I don't know how. Do you have lightroom?

[Derf]

I think he may be talking about a watermark but I am not sure, what exactly are you looking to do?

[NIKV69]

Sounds like he wants to know how to add a watermark.

Just google "adding copyright watermark to my pictures in photoshop" you will get a ton of links

[PhilDernerJr]

There is also a way to have your work registered in copyright....and additional level of protection that makes it easier for you to pursue infringement cases. I'll have more details and assistance on this soon.

[gonzalu]

Phil, as per US Copyright Laws, you are immediately protected as soon as [you] press the shutter, no need to do anything further. However you are welcome to send copies of your images to the US Copyright office for further proof and to make it easier to fight in court, but it is not required!

[NIKV69]

Phil, as per US Copyright Laws, you are immediately protected as soon as [you] press the shutter, no need to do anything further. However you are welcome to send copies of your images to the US Copyright office for further proof and to make it easier to fight in court, but it is not required!

Yep not to mention it's not free.

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html

[PhilDernerJr]

Right and right. :)

[eric8669]

Yep not to mention it's not free.

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html

but that fee pays for it self 10x over if you ever have a copyright infringement case.

[NIKV69]

but that fee pays for it self 10x over if you ever have a copyright infringement case.

You have the same case without it. As Manny clearly pointed out. Not to mention the dollar value is so minuscule that any site or person that has stolen your photo will pay immediately without that registration since it's cheaper than getting involved in a copyright case. If you press them. I have had a few stolen and the last one (Sands SP) the guy sent me a check within 48 hours the second he heard that I would press the issue.

Also don't forget that fee is per photo. So I doubt anyone here will be registering their photos in hopes they recover "10x" if one of their pics are stolen. Since they would need 1 out of every 10 of their pics to get stolen just to break even.

That service is designed for professionals and bigger sport and other venue video shooters I would guess. Not the amateur photog.

[eric8669]

You have the same case without it. Not to mention the dollar value is so minuscule that any site or person that has stolen your photo will pay immediately without that registration since it's cheaper than getting involved in a copyright case. If you press them. I have had a few stolen and the last one (Sands SP) the guy sent me a check within 48 hours the second he heard that I would press the issue.

Also don't forget that fee is per photo. So I doubt anyone here will be registering their photos in hopes they recover "10x" if one of their pics are stolen. Since they would need 1 out of every 10 of their pics to get stolen just to break even.

Actually, its not per photo. You can send in several images under the same registration.

Here is a great article on the topic.
http://goingpro2010.com/2010/03/14/registering-your-photographs-with-the-library-of-congress/

[NIKV69]

There’s no excuse not to register your Copyright, especially if you hope to make money from your photographic endeavors

Like I said the service is designed for professionals. If you like to pay 35$ a year and retain a layer that will cost you double to triple what you will recover from a simple email go right ahead but fact is it's unnecessary.


Scott Bourne is a professional and seems to make consistent money which may make it cost effective but something like this is probably more utilized by people like Ron Galella. Who probably sees annual sales in the hundreds of thousands and has to probably fight theives stealing his work constantly since he has shot the most high profile subjects. Not B6 320s on final at JFK. The only person I can see utilizing this is someone like Gerard Isaacson.

[eric8669]

Like I said the service is designed for professionals. If you like to pay 35$ a year and retain a layer that will cost you double to triple what you will recover from a simple email go right ahead but fact is it's unnecessary.


Scott Bourne is a professional and seems to make consistent money which may make it cost effective but something like this is probably more utilized by people like Ron Galella. Who probably sees annual sales in the hundreds of thousands and has to probably fight theives stealing his work constantly since he has shot the most high profile subjects. Not B6 320s on final at JFK.

Where does it say you need to retain a lawyer, you can consult one if you like, but it is not needed. And as a matter of fact, I have had an image of a B6 320 landing at JFK used without my permission.

[PhilDernerJr]

Neither of you are wrong. Registering your copyright is very useful when pursuing infringement. It's just not necessary and it doesn't make your case any less valid if you don't have it. Same with a lawyer...useful and beneficial, but not necessary.

[NIKV69]

Where does it say you need to retain a lawyer

In order to convince an attorney to help you sue to protect your rights, you will either need to pay them traditionally high fees, or provide them with evidence of a Copyright Registration

Eric you know full well that any photo that yourself or I or anyone with the exception of people like Gerard will see any sort of meager compensation for theft will be done with a simple email and not a lawyer or this registration. Why do you continue to argue? As everyone that has had any experience with this knows it's such a small amount none of this ever takes place.


you can consult one if you like, but it is not needed

Neither is the registration. Read your own source. This is designed for "professionals" people like Gerard that make a living simply on their work and that if needed use a lawyer and this service to sue for real damages of theft. Not spotters camping out at JFK that stand to gain probably 50 to 100 bucks at best.



And as a matter of fact, I have had an image of a B6 320 landing at JFK used without my permission.

So, I had a Maxjet shot stolen from JFK, in fact Phil found it. It was fair use. So what? I had no recourse. Unless the people that stole it used it to make money or for advertising like when my SP shot was stolen you won't get anything. Even with that I only got a check for $400 bucks. No lawyer, no registration required and the shot was taken down after 2 months. What was your B6 shot used for?

For the third time. It is up to the individual but if they feel they need to pay $35 for every 750 pics in a calendar year knock yourself out. When uploading to JP or anet does the same thing for free.

[eric8669]

All I am saying is that I am in favor of registering. I'm just not talking about Aviation photography, but any photography you do. It is something I am considering doing in the near future. for me personally its something I have been looking into as I am now considered a professional as all my income comes from photography.

[NIKV69]

All I am saying is that I am in favor of registering. I'm just not talking about Aviation photography, but any photography you do. It is something I am considering doing in the near future. for me personally its something I have been looking into as I am now considered a professional as all my income comes from photography.

Best of luck with it. Unfortunately most of this could be avoided by simply posting samples online instead of files with no watermark. If you do it properly it's not obtrusive but still has your name in huge letters across the center of the pic so it can't be photoshopped out and we should all support the Stop Online Piracy act which I do.

[PhilDernerJr]

Watermarks do not prevent theft, and they are not photoshop-proof.

[NIKV69]

Watermarks do not prevent theft, and they are not photoshop-proof.

If done properly and in the middle of the picture they are. Plus the skills needed to do the extensive cloning needed to try to get rid of it without the destroying the pic is too much and thieves will just go on to the next pic without a watermark or one with it on the bottom of the pic which is easily removed.

Here is a good example. Give this a shot at removing and give us an accurate time it took to do.

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/9368/copyrightc.jpg

[eric8669]

If done properly and in the middle of the picture they are. Plus the skills needed to do the extensive cloning needed to try to get rid of it without the destroying the pic is too much and thieves will just go on to the next pic without a watermark or one with it on the bottom of the pic which is easily removed.

Here is a good example. Give this a shot at removing and give us an accurate time it took to do.

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/9368/copyrightc.jpg

But putting a watermark across an image takes away from the viewing experience of the image. If you indeed use a watermark make it so it does not interfere with viewing the image.

[NIKV69]

But putting a watermark across an image takes away from the viewing experience of the image. If you indeed use a watermark make it so it does not interfere with viewing the image.



That defeats the purpose of the watermark. A watermark is there to protect the photographer. Not enhance the viewing of the people on the net. People that upload big enough files without a watermark through the subject are who is enabling piracy and honestly all the registering in the world won't help since most of the theft will go undetected. Serious professionals will always watermark in this fashion since the pic is merely a sample and the watermark in my example really doesn't interfere with the viewing of the subject. Or they just disable the scripts so the picture can't be downloaded to the person's HD by right clicking and saving. Still the best ways to protect your work.

[eric8669]

That defeats the purpose of the watermark. A watermark is there to protect the photographer. Not enhance the viewing of the people on the net. People that upload big enough files without a watermark through the subject are who is enabling piracy and honestly all the registering in the world won't help since most of the theft will go undetected. Serious professionals will always watermark in this fashion since the pic is merely a sample and the watermark in my example really doesn't interfere with the viewing of the subject. Or they just disable the scripts so the picture can't be downloaded to the person's HD by right clicking and saving. Still the best ways to protect your work.





Again Nick, I have to disagree, I follow a number of serious professionals who do not watermark.

[NIKV69]

Again Nick, I have to disagree, I follow a number of serious professionals who do not watermark.

This is what I wrote.


Serious professionals will always watermark in this fashion since the pic is merely a sample and the watermark in my example really doesn't interfere with the viewing of the subject. Or they just disable the scripts so the picture can't be downloaded to the person's HD by right clicking and saving

The professionals that you follow. Are you able to right click and save the image?

[eric8669]

I have no idea, I've never tried.

instead of a watermark, try embedding your information in the metadata. I find the watermarked image you posted very distracting actually.

[NIKV69]

I find the watermarked image you posted very distracting actually.

Only because you need to argue the point with me. In reality it doesn't really take away from the subject and people viewing that shot get the full effect of the subject and realize the photographer has skills. Which is what he is looking for while protecting himself.





instead of a watermark, try embedding your information in the metadata.

Sure, at the end of the day things like this, and other thing like

1. Doing what Sam Chui does. Upload no bigger than 1000 pixels and at a resolution that nothing can be done with the stolen photo other than web viewage since anet is ground zero for theft and one needs to only pay FC membership to circumvent the watermark.

2. Watermark it properly

3. Disable scripts and other such things preventing downloading pic from page to HD.

Other than that our photos will get stolen, and most (I would venture to say at least half) will never even be detected by us. If you upload big enough files. Unfortunately with web and social media it's reality now.

[PhilDernerJr]

Watermarks take away from the integrity of the image. It's a shame that photographer's need to sacrifice their work because of rampant theft. THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING! haha

[eric8669]

Just make all your images creative commons, then you don't have to worry. I know a number of professionals that do this too.

[NIKV69]

Watermarks take away from the integrity of the image. It's a shame that photographer's need to sacrifice their work because of rampant theft. THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING! haha

Basically, the digital revolution had a dark side. Which is why I support the SOPA. I think it will send a message and make a difference. Eric, Phil. Do you support it?

[eric8669]

based on the internet radio podcast I have listened to on this subject, as of right now I do not support SOPA. I have to look at some more information and I'll get back to you.

[PhilDernerJr]

I do not support it at this time because my research (I could be wrong) indicates that a site can be shut down within hours of a mere claim of infringement...which is not adequate due process in my mind.

[NIKV69]

I do not support it at this time because my research (I could be wrong) indicates that a site can be shut down within hours of a mere claim of infringement...which is not adequate due process in my mind.

Could you post a source of this? I mean the bill gives the DOJ power to seek a court order so they won't have absolute power to shut down sites. The order will not be granted until a judge looks at all facts presented so I can't see site being shut down in "hours"


based on the internet radio podcast I have listened to on this subject, as of right now I do not support SOPA. I have to look at some more information and I'll get back to you.

What did you hear that made you feel this way?

[PhilDernerJr]

Part of the testimony given about it specifically said the process can take as early as 6 hours. I have no link to the transcripts.

[NIKV69]

Part of the testimony given about it specifically said the process can take as early as 6 hours. I have no link to the transcripts.

Sounds like smoke to me. I mean here is the bill. The AG has to seek a court order and that is no way can take 6 hours. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03261:@@@L&summ2=m&

As long as the courts are not circumvented which seems clear here it's not an overreach of power. I mean it took the DOJ 5 years to enforce the UIGEA act and this bill doesn't give them the power to shut the site down since they are outside the us but instructs search engines and payment processors to place in action measures to counteract piracy.

From what I have read seems like a pretty good bill for people who don't want their copyrighted photos, video or other media stolen at will then distributed at a geometric rate electronically.

[PhilDernerJr]

Smoke as in I'm lying?

[NIKV69]

Smoke as in I'm lying?

No smoke as in the person you are quoting was just making up scenarios because they want to continue to steal copyrighted material at will. Though it is good form to produce sources when making claims or transcripts so we can see what was actually said.

[jerslice]

From what I have read seems like a pretty good bill for people who don't want their copyrighted photos, video or other media stolen at will then distributed at a geometric rate electronically.

When Google, GoDadday, WikiPedia,Reddit, YouTube, the Heritage Foundation, and the founders of the internet itself have all come out against--many of them like Google and internet founders not merely against but strongly against--perhaps it isn't so great.
The only major supporters of this bill are, by and large, Hollywood and the USCC.

An FAQ from respected tech site CNET:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57329001-281/how-sopa-would-affect-you-faq/?tag=mncol;txt

[NIKV69]

When Google, GoDadday, WikiPedia,Reddit, YouTube, the Heritage Foundation, and the founders of the internet itself have all come out against--many of them like Google and internet founders not merely against but strongly against--perhaps it isn't so great.
The only major supporters of this bill are, by and large, Hollywood and the USCC.

An FAQ from respected tech site CNET:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57329001-281/how-sopa-would-affect-you-faq/?tag=mncol;txt

You realize that the people you just quoted as being against the bill are the ones who profit the most from the theft of copyrighted material? The ones you quoted as being for the bill are the victims of the theft?

This is equal to being a person who sells guns at gun shows which don't have to be subject to the law of background checks and being against passing a law making it a crime to sell guns in this manner. Not caring that you doing so can harm somebody or lead to someone being killed simply because you profit in huge amounts from it. I mean I love youtube but you realize they make a lot of money from stealing copyrighted stuff?


If this bill gets passed as written and government has to get court approval and have evidence copyright theft is occuring it's a total win for the people who create material protected by copyright. If you are against it then you are condoning the theft and easy transmission of this material for profit. So until someone can give me some real proof of their claims that this bill has major flaws or would be harmful in another way besides letting youtube and google make millions from stolen material I am calling major BS here.

[jerslice]

When did the Heritage Foundation and the founders of the internet profit in it?

I do realize YouTube makes a lot of money off it, but the onus is placed on the user making the upload, and YouTube currently says the user is responsible for the content uploaded - that they merely provide space.


If this bill gets passed as written and government has to get court approval and have evidence copyright theft is occuring it's a total win for the people who create material protected by copyright. If you are against it then you are condoning the theft and easy transmission of this material for profit. So until someone can give me some real proof of their
claims that this bill has major flaws or would be harmful in another way besides letting youtube and google make millions from stolen material I am calling major BS here.
Two things here bud, first: you don't appear to have read the link I posted, but if you do so you'll see that tech folks bring up more than a handful of reasons why SOPA retains the power to damage the internet, nevermind the concerns over government sponsored censorship. Two: you clearly have your mind made up on SOPA. While I strongly disagree with you I don't see you buying anything an anti-SOPA person would throw your way anyways.

Phil, the quote on DOJ disabled a website in six hours came from testimony from the DOJ - it was in a WashingtonPost article from somewhere in the neighborhood of November 17th.

[NIKV69]

and YouTube currently says the user is responsible for the content uploaded - that they merely provide space

That is like saying you own a hall and know that the person you rent it to is auctioning off stolen items in it and you merely provide the space and collecting the money. It's not an excuse. Ebay doesn't allow it why should anyone else?


government sponsored censorship

It's not censorship. You can't allow someone to upload a movie that is copyright infringement then yell when you can't make the advertising revenue from it and call it censorship. It's not even in the ballpark. Censorship is stopping people from expressing themselves due to things you don't agree with or find objectionable that would otherwise not break the law. This is breaking the law.


While I strongly disagree with you I don't see you buying anything an anti-SOPA person would throw your way anyways.


I asked you to provide me with something of substance and I would be open to hear it. So far you have given me a what if and are assuming the government will be censoring us when all they have said is they are going to take court sanctioned action against sites that knowingly reproduce stuff they know is stolen and or breaks copyright law. You are basically telling me that by doing this it's censorship? I mean come on you can't really believe that?

Basically what is happening here is the tech world and regular people hate this law because they are going to have to pony up a couple of bucks to stream a movie instead of watching a free pirated copy on youtube. I mean unless I am missing something it's basically that simple. Now if you can provide something of substance that gives any support to a government overreach and or censorship I am all for it.

A censor free internet means you can post anything you want. Porn, cursing, gore etc. As long as you haven't stolen it. That is not being threatened here. To exploit that notion is really unfair and just a red herring.

[ImperfectSense]

The idea that anyone could defend legislation like SOPA is scary to me. Here are a few of my concerns with this and similar bills.

First: They will not accomplish their stated goals of ending piracy. Peer-to-peer filesharing hasn't depended on search engines, blogs, or domain names since... well, it's been a long long time. It is all done via torrents which operate solely by IP address and the torrent files themselves are 1) not illegal so the sites hosting them can't be shut down and 2) easily searchable using tools like BitChe that don't rely on websites or domain names.

Second: They WILL allow the paranoid to the point of idiotic Entertainment Industry to take down pretty much every website that allows user content or user feedback in any form. Today, a website like Facebook or NYCAviation makes users agree to a User Agreement that states the user is responsible for the content of everything they post. If someone posts something they shouldn't, the party who is being harmed can ask NYCAviation to take the material down, they will do so, and that is the end of the story. Under SOPA, if I post a link to something illegal in this forum post, then within just a few hours the entire NYCAviation domain could be turned off and removed from all search engines. Nobody would be able to access this website, nor would it show up as a result in a Google search, until the courts get around to hearing NYCAviation's defense. This could be weeks, months, years, during which time this website might as well never have existed. Users will move elsewhere, search engine rank will be reset to zero, and even if eventually you convince the courts that your website is "clean", your entire business will be starting from scratch when they turn your domain back on.

Third: The Internet is known as the World-Wide Web. Everyone can access everything that's out there, information flows freely. There are a few countries who censor what their citizens can see, but every year they let in a little more, and every year those people are a little closer to enjoying the freedoms we take for granted. If we allow the government to start censoring speech on the Internet, to start punishing website owners who are not even responsible for the content posted by their users, we will kill the Internet. If SOPA passes, the only way for a website owner to be sure their site won't be taken down will be to require an approval process for every piece of user content posted to their site. Can you imagine the cost? How many staff would you need to do that here at NYCAviation? How many hours would it take a post to be approved? Could thoughtful and interesting conversations like this even happen, or would everyone have moved on to the next big story before any of the comments are even visible yet? Can you imagine an Internet with no comments, no blogs, no links, all out of fear of the U.S. Government and our entertainment industry?

Fourth: There are more reasons, many more, but this one will be my last today... We have a country in economic crisis, we have a war ongoing in Afghanistan, we have new unknown regimes sprouting around the globe as dictators fall (thanks Internet!), we have tax laws that need to be rewritten, we have TSA groping grandmothers, we have countless serious national issues... and yet Congress, BOTH HOUSES, are screwing around with legislation like SOPA?!?! Are you fracking kidding me? Teens downloading movies instead of going to the theater or buying the DVD which is supposedly hurting sales (but nobody can point to any statistics that PROVE that of course).... That's our big issue? That's what our Representatives are going to vote on? C'mon, let's get real. A lot of those problems Congress can't do anything about (or shouldn't) but those it can do something about aren't going to go away if we ignore them. Let's throw away this useless, scary legislation and move on to something IMPORTANT.

-Liz

[eric8669]

Great response Liz

[NIKV69]

Peer-to-peer filesharing hasn't depended on search engines, blogs, or domain names since... well, it's been a long long time

This is not true, I have found plenty of torrents by search engines. You can't pigeon hole it. Some people will hear through word of mouth, search engine, blogs any way in which people find stuff on the internet.


They WILL allow the paranoid to the point of idiotic Entertainment Industry to take down pretty much every website that allows user content or user feedback in any form.

How when a court system has to ok any action? Why do you keep reciting this empty propaganda? The bill does not give absolute power to anyone and the entertainment industry can not do anything by themselves. I mean it's right there in the bill. We don't need the bomb throwing can we stick to facts?


Today, a website like Facebook or NYCAviation makes users agree to a User Agreement that states the user is responsible for the content of everything they post. If someone posts something they shouldn't, the party who is being harmed can ask NYCAviation to take the material down, they will do so, and that is the end of the story. Under SOPA, if I post a link to something illegal in this forum post, then within just a few hours the entire NYCAviation domain could be turned off and removed from all search engines. Nobody would be able to access this website, nor would it show up as a result in a Google search, until the courts get around to hearing NYCAviation's defense. This could be weeks, months, years, during which time this website might as well never have existed. Users will move elsewhere, search engine rank will be reset to zero, and even if eventually you convince the courts that your website is "clean", your entire business will be starting from scratch when they turn your domain back on.

Again this is just total propaganda and fearmongering. I am pretty sure a judge is not going to ok any DOJ action or ok the taking down of a site in hours unless all the other less evasive courses of actions have been exhausted. That is what the court system is for. To prevent absolute power. Using your NYCav example I am sure if illegal material is posted Phil would be contacted and made aware of the situation with instructions and warnings that the material has to be removed and the person and or site posting the stuff addressed. To try to make us believe that the government has the ability to just start taking down sites at the first site of wrongdoing is total BS. This is a fake scenario being invented by the people that fear their free ride in viewing movies and listening to music is coming to an end.


There are a few countries who censor what their citizens can see, but every year they let in a little more, and every year those people are a little closer to enjoying the freedoms we take for granted.

So now you are brining North Korea into this? No. I won't even entertain this. You are way over the line. This isn't stopping the free flow of information. It's about stopping the free flow of STOLEN media.


If SOPA passes, the only way for a website owner to be sure their site won't be taken down will be to require an approval process for every piece of user content posted to their site. Can you imagine the cost? How many staff would you need to do that here at NYCAviation? How many hours would it take a post to be approved? Could thoughtful and interesting conversations like this even happen, or would everyone have moved on to the next big story before any of the comments are even visible yet? Can you imagine an Internet with no comments, no blogs, no links, all out of fear of the U.S. Government and our entertainment industry?

Again just more fearmongering, if the law passes Phil won't have to constantly monitor anything. If something gets by he will get a heads up and then he could monitor the IP address of serial abuser and block them. Ebay does it and it didn't put them out of business.


We have a country in economic crisis, we have a war ongoing in Afghanistan, we have new unknown regimes sprouting around the globe as dictators fall (thanks Internet!), we have tax laws that need to be rewritten, we have TSA groping grandmothers, we have countless serious national issues... and yet Congress, BOTH HOUSES, are screwing around with legislation like SOPA?!?! Are you fracking kidding me? Teens downloading movies instead of going to the theater or buying the DVD which is supposedly hurting sales (but nobody can point to any statistics that PROVE that of course).... That's our big issue? That's what our Representatives are going to vote on? C'mon, let's get real. A lot of those problems Congress can't do anything about (or shouldn't) but those it can do something about aren't going to go away if we ignore them. Let's throw away this useless, scary legislation and move on to something IMPORTANT.

It's this diversionary kind of smoke and mirrors that always erupts when people lose the golden goose. You are telling me that the illegal sharing of movies and music has not caused harm to retail sales? Your really believe that?

[PhilDernerJr]

Both sides are valid, but until we hear what the exact due process is to prove otherwise, site owners like myself need to fear the worst.

[ImperfectSense]

It isn't fear mongering to expect that judges are going to make snap decisions based on incomplete information and after hearing only one side of the story... that's EXACTLY what is going to happen. The owner of the website will not be given a chance to tell their side to the judge, they won't even know anything is happening until the judge has already reached their decision. I don't always feel comfortable linking to wikipedia stuff but here are some very succinct and well laid out summaries of the major problems with this bill, ESPECIALLY the one about the weakening of the DMCA brings to light just how horrible this bill will be in action: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Arguments_against

Look, if you work at a retailer and you get caught stealing some stuff, you'll be given the opportunity to post bail, the amount will be reasonable so you can actually afford it, and it will be illegal for anyone to not hire you based on the upcoming case against you... in other words, innocent until proven guilty, and the legal system isn't allowed to do anything that will permanently harm your future until you are found guilty by a jury of your peers. But what SOPA will be doing is more like this: You work for a retailer, a movie industry executive sees you steal a DVD of their movie, they go to a judge and the judge CLOSES THE STORE, has the signs taken down, and removes all traces from the Yellow Pages and Google Maps. THEN the store owner has to wait on a court date, go to court, and try to convince a judge that their employee wasn't doing anything wrong. If they win, they get to reopen their store, but all of their customers have found new places to shop. If they lose, which could happen even if they had no idea what their employee was doing, then their store remains closed and THEY could face up to 5 years in prison plus lots of fines. Oh and in the meantime the building caught fire so they can't even liquidate their assets to make some $$$ back ('cause really, websites don't have physical assets). Finally, if the owner of the business wins, they're innocent, they can re-open their store... they cannot counter-sue the movie executive for all the losses they have sustained based on his/her false allegation! In order to receive any damages back, they have to prove the allegation was malicious, which is an incredibly hard (nearly impossible) standard to meet.

This legislation is BAD BAD BAD... If you've ever been on a high school debate team or have any sort of legal background you know how important the language of something like this is, how it needs to be clear and specific about exactly what is ok and what isn't, exactly what needs to be proven and what doesn't, etc... this bill is not at all clear, about any of that, and those gaping holes ARE going to be exploited... all they have to do is find a judge who agrees with them. They've already found (bought?) congressmen and senators, how hard will a judge be? =\

[NIKV69]

It isn't fear mongering to expect that judges are going to make snap decisions based on incomplete information and after hearing only one side of the story.

If you are just throwing it out there it is. If you really believe this it's paranoia.


that's EXACTLY what is going to happen

You know this how? If it's a crystal ball tell me who is going to win the Super Bowl. I will split the winnings with you.


The owner of the website will not be given a chance to tell their side to the judge, they won't even know anything is happening until the judge has already reached their decision.

They won't be here because they are sites in other countries and outside our jurisdiction. Hence why the payment processors and search engines are targeted. Very similar to the UIGEA. The gambling sites existed offshore and were licensed by the Mohawk and other Indian tribes totally immune to any law anywhere. Which is why banks had to be addressed and the actual electronic funding had to be made illegal.


If you've ever been on a high school debate team or have any sort of legal background you know how important the language of something like this is, how it needs to be clear and specific about exactly what is ok and what isn't, exactly what needs to be proven and what doesn't, etc... this bill is not at all clear, about any of that, and those gaping holes ARE going to be exploited... all they have to do is find a judge who agrees with them. They've already found (bought?) congressmen and senators, how hard will a judge be? =\

You are getting way ahead here. The bill goes through many processes and many amendments before voting and passage. As long as courts are given clear guidelines and nobody has absolute power the bill is fine. There is no censorship in it whatsoever and the freedom the net will not be effected.

[PhilDernerJr]

I want to know if I will have a chance to speak my side before some sort of action is taken....and THAT is the bottom line for me. We can't have sites shut down in the same way a judge determines a search warrant (no actual due process there).

[NIKV69]

I want to know if I will have a chance to speak my side before some sort of action is taken....and THAT is the bottom line for me. We can't have sites shut down in the same way a judge determines a search warrant (no actual due process there).

I seriously doubt you won't Phil. The type of overreach being propagated here would never pass the courts and would go down in a appeal. You will have to be given a chance to address someone or something that is posting stuff on your site that falls into the category of this bill.

This comment speaks volumes An aide to Rep. Lamar Smith has stated that "He is open to changes but only legitimate changes. Some site[s] are totally capable of filtering illegal content, but they won’t and are instead profiting from the traffic of illegal content.”[104] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#cite_note-He_is_open_to_changes-103)

I take this to mean if you are willing to do your part you will be treated fairly. If you don't or refuse then DOJ goes to the court with evidence of such and they go from there.

[ImperfectSense]

I know that judges will make snap decisions based on incomplete information and a TOTAL lack of understanding of how websites work or how content is posted because... they already do. All the time. Anyone who follows tech news knows that every few months some judge decides that the Internet really is "a series of tubes"... these are judges, they understand law, but they don't understand how DNS works, or what a dynamic IP is (most of them, enough of them).

I also know they'll be acting based on incomplete information because they will only be hearing one side of the story. Not because the defendant (website owner) is in another country... there is NOTHING in this legislation which states it will only be used against foreign websites... but because a judicial decision like this doesn't require hearing both sides of the story. The decision process they will be using is akin to that used to issue a warrant or permission for wire-tapping... it's supposed to be used to take immediate action that DOESN'T harm the defendant but needs to be taken immediately in order to further the investigation. It is NOT the process used to sue, request damages, try someone on criminal charges, etc... all those things which could do irreparable harm to the defendant. It's the WRONG process to be using, period.

It sounds like you agree that the wording of this legislation is horrible and needs to be made MUCH more specific before it is passed... but do you realize that all of your "processes and amendments" are being rushed through thanks to lobbying by the entertainment industry? They are trying to get this thing out of committee and onto the floor to be passed RIGHT NOW, AS IS! That is BAD.

[ImperfectSense]

I want to know if I will have a chance to speak my side before some sort of action is taken....and THAT is the bottom line for me. We can't have sites shut down in the same way a judge determines a search warrant (no actual due process there).

Text from the bill:
(b) Action by the Attorney General-
(3) NOTICE- Upon commencing an action under this subsection, the Attorney General shall send a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this section--
(A) to the registrant of the domain name of the Internet site--
(B) to the owner or operator of the Internet site--
(c) Actions Based on Court Orders-
(A) SERVICE PROVIDERS-
(i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.
(B) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES- A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link.
(C) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS-
(i) PREVENTING AFFILIATION- A payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the payment account--
(D) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES-
(i) REQUIRED ACTIONS- An Internet advertising service that contracts to provide advertising to or for the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such site or such portion thereof, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to--
(I) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order or a portion of such site specified in the order;
(II) cease making available advertisements for the foreign infringing site or such portion thereof, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof; and
(III) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof.

Read that carefully... UPON COMMENCING AN ACTION, they will send you, the owner or operator of the website, notice. This means you will not even know someone has accused your site of hosting illegal content until they have already blocked access to it, removed it from search engines, and/or pulled all advertising and payment processing services.

You can read the entire bill here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3261

Oh, and carefully read the definition of "foreign internet site"... it's anything not domenstic... then read the definition of "domestic internet site"... (5) DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE- The term ‘domestic Internet site’ means an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address.

Well, a .us would be domestic, but what about a .com? What if your domain registrar is a Canadian company, or your hosting provider? They don't have a clue what they're saying, and what they're saying is technically meaningless, and because of this everything in this legislation could apply to anyone.

[NIKV69]

Read that carefully.

I wish you would of. Nowhere in that text you provided will sites be shut down within hours. It sure seems to me that the site and ISP will be given a reasonable period of time to fix the issue. In addition to being at the courts control on to what the DOJ can do. Which you are predicting are going to be heavy handed and unreasonable based on no info whatsoever but what you "feel".

[ImperfectSense]

I wish you would of. Nowhere in that text you provided will sites be shut down within hours. It sure seems to me that the site and ISP will be given a reasonable period of time to fix the issue. In addition to being at the courts control on to what the DOJ can do. Which you are predicting are going to be heavy handed and unreasonable based on no info whatsoever but what you "feel".

"that the site... will be given a reasonable period of time to fix the issue." Huh? The site owner won't be notified until they have "commenced action" "as expeditiously as possible". Now, it takes exactly 5 seconds to block a given domain name or IP address, once the request to do so reaches the tech who manages that for the service provider... So the only "heads up" you'll be getting is to the email address and/or postal address listed in your PUBLIC DNS record, and will be in a "race" against how fast the request trickles down through the service provider. Now, the reason I emphasized PUBLIC DNS record is because most domain registrars offer a service, highly recommend, that hides all of your personal data on the public DNS record, this is to cut down on spam, and most smart registrants use it. So they probably won't be able to contact you by email or snail mail, they'll have to contact the company you used to register your domain. Do you know who that is? Do you trust them to forward the notice to you quickly, if at all? Did you register your domain with 123domains.com or godaddy.com or who? How much you wanna bet your site will be blocked before you have the slightest clue what's happening? I can almost guarantee that's what would happen to me with my websites...

And this is COMPLETELY ignoring the biggest issue here... the fact that you will have NO say at all in the judge's decision. Regardless of whether you find out days before the site is actually shut down that they are taking that action against you... there will still be nothing you can do! All you are getting is a notification that they are about to take your website offline. That's not a request for you to defend yourself, that's not an opportunity to speak up before bad things happen, that's just you being told what is about to happen. I'm sure there will be some fine print on the back of the letter (like with a speeding ticket) telling you what the appeals process is and how you can request a hearing date... but even that will not change the fact that your website will cease to exist until you have proven you are innocent. This entire situation is "guilty until proven innocent" and it goes against everything our country was founded on.

[NIKV69]

"that the site... will be given a reasonable period of time to fix the issue." Huh? The site owner won't be notified until they have "commenced action" "as expeditiously as possible". Now, it takes exactly 5 seconds to block a given domain name or IP address, once the request to do so reaches the tech who manages that for the service provider... So the only "heads up" you'll be getting is to the email address and/or postal address listed in your PUBLIC DNS record, and will be in a "race" against how fast the request trickles down through the service provider. Now, the reason I emphasized PUBLIC DNS record is because most domain registrars offer a service, highly recommend, that hides all of your personal data on the public DNS record, this is to cut down on spam, and most smart registrants use it. So they probably won't be able to contact you by email or snail mail, they'll have to contact the company you used to register your domain. Do you know who that is? Do you trust them to forward the notice to you quickly, if at all? Did you register your domain with 123domains.com or godaddy.com or who? How much you wanna bet your site will be blocked before you have the slightest clue what's happening? I can almost guarantee that's what would happen to me with my websites...

And this is COMPLETELY ignoring the biggest issue here... the fact that you will have NO say at all in the judge's decision. Regardless of whether you find out days before the site is actually shut down that they are taking that action against you... there will still be nothing you can do! All you are getting is a notification that they are about to take your website offline. That's not a request for you to defend yourself, that's not an opportunity to speak up before bad things happen, that's just you being told what is about to happen. I'm sure there will be some fine print on the back of the letter (like with a speeding ticket) telling you what the appeals process is and how you can request a hearing date... but even that will not change the fact that your website will cease to exist until you have proven you are innocent. This entire situation is "guilty until proven innocent" and it goes against everything our country was founded on.

Completely lost on you is there isn't a judge alive that will allow or will the DOJ attempt to do anything you are describing in your doomsday scenario. Doing so would violate just about everything and wouldn't last a second. The sites will be given every opportunity to take reasonable action in a reasonable period of time. If they fail to do so then they deserve anything they get. You are inventing these scenarios that have zero chance of happening in an attempt to scare the heck out of people and get them believing the internet will be run like the Gestapo. Which most level headed people know is not going to happen. I am sure once the bill begins to be debated and amendments are added sites will be treated fairly and given ample time to address piracy. No tin hats needed just yet.

[ImperfectSense]

So what you want is a bill that says: If a site has illegal content on it, the copyright holder should first contact the site owner and ask them to take down the offending material, if they do so there will be no penalty, if they don't then the matter proceeds to court where both sides can submit their arguments and evidence and a judge will make a ruling about the fate of the offending material and any damages that should be paid in either direction.

Is that correct, roughly?

[gonzalu]

but that fee pays for it self 10x over if you ever have a copyright infringement case.

LOL, how many have you had? We take ourselves far too seriously... I have been taking pictures for a ery long time and I have never found my pictures being used by a major media outlet I can actually sue for damages... so not sure how valuable would it have been to actually register each of my 250,000+ collection!

[NIKV69]

So what you want is a bill that says: If a site has illegal content on it, the copyright holder should first contact the site owner and ask them to take down the offending material,

This is pretty much standard practice.


if they do so there will be no penalty

Depends on the situation but if the offending party took steps to remove copyright how would the person running the website know?


if they don't then the matter proceeds to court where both sides can submit their arguments and evidence and a judge will make a ruling about the fate of the offending material and any damages that should be paid in either direction.

Again if you read what Lamar Smith said it's the sites that refuse to act when they know it's illegal content. When you are hosting illegal content you don't have a say so how can a site have an argument? If the judge is convinced the evidence supports the content is being used without permission the site doesn't have a say. Since these sites are hosted outside the US the search engine and payment processors are addressed and so on.

Again you are making the argument that types of piracy are ok. It's not.

[ImperfectSense]

My point was, that outline of a balanced and fair approach to dealing with illegal content is already in existence. It's called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and it's been in effect for YEARS. It's why YouTube, Flickr, etc will all take down potentially offending content just at the request of the copyright holder. It's been doing a damn good job of fairly policing the internet for a while.

SOPA is new, it's different, it's not fair and balanced. As you yourself said, if a judge is convinced you're hosting illegal content, why should you have a say? CLEARLY you are guilty, a judge said so, based entirely on testimony from your accuser. Wait a minute, what happened to due process?

Oh, we don't have to give them due process because they're foreign? Or at least their domain name is? So... wait, if they're foreign, and they committed any other crime, wouldn't we either 1) request that their government extradite them so they can face justice (and by the way benefit from due process) here in the U.S. or 2) request that their government try them under their own laws? Don't those things sound... fair?

Let's turn the tables. Let's say you run an aviation news website. You run a story about how Alenia is screwing up the 787 again. Alenia takes offense and goes crying to the Italian government. These are the people who are suing geologists for not predicting the last earthquake, ok? They're bonkers. Anyway, Alenia finds some content someone posted on your site, or maybe even fabricates some evidence, who knows, they're pissed. Anyway, they have an Italian judge turn off all access to your website (no Italians can get there, so much for all those hits that article was getting), request to have you removed from all search engines (these are international, so, NOBODY can search for you anymore), and disable all your ads/revenue (again, most of these are international, so it would affect all traffic). Sometime before or after all this happened you got a very nice letter (by way of your domain registrar... yea, right) telling you what was going to happen, and offering that if you'd like to appeal the decision you can fly to Italy, request a hearing, wait a few months, and then talk to some crazy people wearing wigs who just got done sentencing some geologists to prison for not predicting an unpredictable event. That sounds like justice to you?

Yea, it's kind of a funny ha ha far-fetched scenario... until it happens. I promise you I can create any amount of documentation required to convince ANY judge that a website is secretly hosting illegal material. All you need is a screenshot of an FTP directory and Photoshop to change some text, and voila, instant illegal file hosting. Sure, there is a SLIM chance that I might get caught when the website owner finds out... but I've got all this evidence, and all they have is the same evidence I do, taken days later, after they know about the accusation against them, showing no illegal content there. Who is to say whether it was really there and they just deleted it or whether I'm making it up? How long could I drag the fight out, how much would it cost in lawyer fees? Even if they finally prove the content was never there, they can't recover any losses from me unless they prove I did it because I was mad at them. This whole thing is ridiculous.

Stick to due process, innocent until proven guilty, down with SOPA.

[Derf]

Working for an Internet service provider, this is the biggest threat to freedom that I have seen to this date. Daily we talk about how communist country's filter news media and the Internet and do not have the freedom to speak. You can throw a pin on this 10,000 ways but if you are that worried about someone stealing your work, do not release it. Your art will always be stolen, not just from the evil Internet. Make a painting and put it on display, someone WILL take a picture of it. It is a fact of life and a spin can be put on this too, it does not change the fact that right now you DO have recourse against someone that steals your work. YOU can sue them and win. This is really scary and I have read a lot into this as I work daily supporting what we are talking about.

[NIKV69]

if you are that worried about someone stealing your work, do not release it

So Actors and musicians should just find another line of work????

No, people should be allowed to release songs, movies, pictures etc without having to endure piracy for the sake of people who want to hide behind "freedom" and who really want free stuff. This bill isn't about ending our freedoms but giving people another layer of protection from people who use the internet to steal their work.

[wunaladreamin]

LOL Anyone want to sit on the sidelines with me and share my popcorn? I have an extra tin-foil hat!

[Derf]

I am game...I'll bring a six pack!

[steve1840]

I am game...I'll bring a six pack!

If its yuengling you're bringing make it a twelve pack and count me in!

[Derf]

I have 8 and 2 bud cans, 1 fosters and 5 Samuel Adams. I also have 3/4's of a bottle of whipped cream flavored vodka. I also have a Costco box of microwave extra butter popcorn! Were all good!

[Just_Lucas]

wow alot of posts.. i haven't checked on it,but i asked a local jet center if they would like to use any of my photos that i've taken lately since i can't go to an international airport right now,even though i live 30 mins from it,and i mean like putting ur name on the photo's is that done via photoshop,or like something else? thanks for the help so far appericate it :)

[NIKV69]

wow alot of posts.. i haven't checked on it,but i asked a local jet center if they would like to use any of my photos that i've taken lately since i can't go to an international airport right now,even though i live 30 mins from it,and i mean like putting ur name on the photo's is that done via photoshop,or like something else? thanks for the help so far appericate it :)

Yes any watermark or copyright is done in photoshop. Google is your friend. I got this rather quickly.
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-effects/copyright/

[Just_Lucas]

thanks mate :) i was only wondering because i might be sending a private jet center my photos if they ever respond back :P