June 1st, 2009

See you at Cepic 2009

As a reminder, we are thrilled to be attending CEPIC and speak on two panels - both will be great forums for discussion on important topics that impact us all.

We’ll speak on two panels : CEPIC’s Orphan Works in Practice Panel (June 5, 11:15 AM) and MILE’s Know Your Rights Conference (June 3, 3:00 PM) where we and our German legal partner, Marc Hügel, will present PicScout’s Image Tracker service. We invite everyone to come and listen how PicScout is helping and will continue to help the photo industry.

We look forward to seeing you at CEPIC.

Bookmark and Share
May 28th, 2009

Dan Heller Update…..

I think it’s important that I make a clarification about my blog post yesterday on the OWA. Since nothing about the OWA affects PicScout, I should have expressed my views on the subject on my own blog, not here. My personal knowledge and analysis of the subject also has no bearing on business decisions or strategies of PicScout. Consequently, my post implied a position that is, frankly, irrelevant to PicScout. Unfortunately, the post caused a few responses on our blog that I have also had to take the time to respond to.  And this then generated even more traffic. As you can see, this can easily get rather time-consuming. More important matters are at hand.

But, it’s out there, so let me formally state:  The OWA is not relevant to PicScout. PicScout has no financial or other interest in seeing OWA pass or fail.  Am I back-peddling? Absolutely not. I brought my own personal history—my interpretation and analysis. You can find more about my position on my blog. But for the PicScout blog, the subject has ended.

On an entirely unrelated matter, here’s another bit of news. When I first started working with PicScout, it was on contract. Things evolved to a point where it seemed to make sense that I join the company. But as the weeks wore on, but the reality of day-to-day logistics such as split between the time zones, made it clear that there was too much to do under the unusual conditions of a small and innovative company.  So we’ve decided to return our relationship back to the consulting role we originally had. I’d rather focus on the meat and details that I was originally doing for the company, and not try to take on a major arm of the company given the conditions. For these reasons, I’ll return to my role being more in the background, and less on the face.

Dan.

Bookmark and Share
May 25th, 2009

PicScout at CEPIC: The Orphan Works Act

Wow–a fresh new blog for me to jot down thoughts. Yes, this is my first blog posting since joining PicScout as VP of Marketing. My formal “public” announcements came on my personal blog last week, but I’ve been so busy getting things together for the CEPIC conference, that I haven’t had much time to post to this one!

So, now that I’m here, I’d like to mention that we’re going to CEPIC again this year (again as a sponsor). And this time, we’re participating in a very important discussion. One that affects the entire world: the Orphan Works Act.

Yes, that again. Last year, we spoke at a congressional hearing on the subject, but that was in the USA. This time, we’re speaking to a European audience. Giving this presentation is Jeff Downey, Head of Global Sales at PicScout, who has been invited to CEPIC’s Orphan Works in Practice Panel (June 5, 11:15 AM). He will also participate in MILE’s Know Your Rights Conference (June 3, 3:00 PM)  where he will present PicScout’s Image Tracker service, together with our German legal partner, Marc Hugel.

Unfortunately, I won’t be there because I will be leading some photo-business seminars in Montana at exactly the same time. (Sorry, I had a prior commitment.)

But let’s get to the main point:

CEPIC’s website lists as its primary objective, “copyright protection for photography.” Indeed. But unlike many other things photo-related, copyright is one that extends well beyond EU countries, especially when the USofA starts throwing its weight around, as it is currently doing with the Orphan Works Act. As I’ll soon discuss, this is a global issue, not just an EU one, which is why it is taking center stage in photography blogs and discussion forums. And, as is their duty, fear-mongers are spreading the word: “Just say No!”

Why is the OWA so important everywhere? Unless you’ve been hiding in a cave, here’s the scenario that has everyone’s undies up in a bunch: someone finds your photo on some website somewhere, and they want to use it for a marketing or advertising piece, but they have no idea who owns the photo. Under current law, if they publish the photo and you find out, you could sue them for copyright infringement. Under the provisions of the OWA, you could still sue them, but they could be protected from paying damages if they could claim that they did a “diligent search” for the image’s owner, but were unsuccessful.

Well, that’s the fear, anyway.

But the reality is quite different. In fact, several things are at odds between the myth and the reality of the OWA.

To begin, we start with the most specific item: the text of the bill says that if the publisher of the work has done a “diligent search,” then the OWA would provide protection from statutory damages in an infringement claim.

Why is this important? First, if we’re talking about copyright claims in the USA, unless you register your photos with the copyright office, you can’t claim statutory damages anyway. In other words, if you don’t register your photos with the US copyright office, your claim against any infringer–with or without the OWA–would be based on calculations that are unaffected by OWA. It’s as though it never existed. (Most non-US countries don’t have statutory damages, so the OWA would have no relevancy there either.) And, since only about 5% of pro photographers or stock photo agencies bother to register their works with the US copyright office, 95% of the photo industry would be almost entirely unaffected by OWA.

True, there is one caveat to this that only a handful of legal observers have ever mentioned (and never in photo circles): claims of profits. Under the 1976 Copyright Act, copyright holders can sue for profits gained as a direct result of using a work, even if it hasn’t been registered with the copyright office.  There is ambiguity as to whether the various versions of the bill allude to damages other than statutory damages, such as “claims of profits.” If so, the OWA could affect some claims made by copyright holders. However, only a tiny fraction of image uses are ever directly linked to profits anyway. And even then, the OWA already gives judges latitude in such decisions by including text that says, “the court can consider what the effects of registration would have been.” So, this technicality is not something that warrants much concern.

It’s still more relevant to point out that 95% of photographers don’t register their works. So, for them, the OWA is inconsequential.

Ok, so what about that 5% of photographers that do register their works? Do they have something to fear from infringers that could hide behind the OWA and escape statutory damages?

In this case, the OWA provisions are even better: the provision of ‘diligent search’. To many, that phrase is ambiguous: how does one do a diligent search? But this confusion is because they are reading that line by itself. You can’t do that. It’s tied directly to a part of the bill that requires the copyright office to create a “certification process for the establishment of an electronic database to facilitate the search for pictorial … works that are subject to copyright protection under title 17, United States Code.”

Notice that I made the word “an” stand out visibly, by using three fancy font modifications: bold, italic, and red. I did so to illustrate a fact that just about everyone overlooks: there is only ONE such database!

Some have created a myth that there will be many registries and databases, each containing some subset of copyrighted works. In a world with an unknown number of possible copyright registries, how do you define what a ‘diligent search’ is? Would a potential infringer only need to query ’some’ of these registries? The bill doesn’t say! Therefore, it must be risky!

Relax. The bill doesn’t define a “diligent search” because it doesn’t need to: There is only one copyright database. You only need to search “the one.”

And besides all that, there’s another important fact: there is no way to register a work with the copyright office unless you do it through the copyright office. And if you register your works, it’ll land in the one database that matters. Third-party registries would not contain copyrighted works. If they did, then those works would already be in the ONE copyright office’s database too. If those thired-party registries contain works that are not registered, they do not enjoy the “statutory damages” provisions of copyright law. Once again, the OWA would be entirely moot for them. (Remember, only registered works have any relevancy to the OWA.)

Which brings us full circle to the center of all this controversy: what constitutes a diligent search? Knowing that there is only one database, this question very easily answered: if you’re looking to see if a particular photo is a registered work, then you simply submit the photo to an image-recognition engine that matches the work with those in the official database. You will get an instant resolution to the query: it’s either there, or it isn’t.

Diligent Search: Done. Took all of a second.

The elephant in the middle of the room is, “Who’s going to index the copyright office’s database?” Since it’d be public, anyone could. And obviously, PicScout could. It’s not just indexing it that matters, but providing the image-recognition engine that would do precise matches that makes the whole process fast, easy and simple. We could take care of this whole mess in about 15 minutes. (Ok, a bit longer. It’s a bit of a drive to Washington DC.)

So, this is really where things get very, very beneficial for copyright holders:

  • Register your works with the copyright office.
  • Once the OWA bill passes, the copyright office will create a database so your works can be found.
  • Once online, your photos can exist anywhere and everywhere in the whole big, fat, wide world. And if someone gets their hands on one, and wants to publish it in a way that would require paying you a license fee, the OWA would compel them to do a “diligent search,” which would instantly lead them directly to you - swoosh! Took all of one second.
  • Big money comes your way.

So, let’s review:

If you never register your photos with the copyright office, then all this hoopla about the OWA is entirely irrelevant. You already have very little protection (or recourse) against infringers, and OWA doesn’t make it worse.

If you do register your works, there is no downside to the Orphan Works Act. In fact, you have gained a new sales opportunity, one that cannot be compared to any other.

And if you’re not a US-citizen, all the more reason to support OWA: you will get more protection of your own works in the US than you ever had before. But better still, your own country might even adopt very similar legislation.

Dan

Bookmark and Share
May 7th, 2009

PicScout is hiring!

We just opened new positions for Client-Server Team Leader and  C# developers!

We are interested in hiring the best candidates to accompany us on our exciting journey and participate in our rapid growth. PicScout employees are young at heart, ambitious, and thrive in a dynamic environment.

Read more about this and apply here.
We look forward to hearing from you!

Bookmark and Share
May 4th, 2009

PicScout applauds Google for its new Similar Images Search!

What a thrill it is to see Google’s recent announcement of its new “similar image” search! One couldn’t ask for better publicity. Free, too! First, it further validates the huge interest people have in finding and using images online, either for personal or business uses. When people search for images, they are most likely looking to use them for some purpose that very well may require licensing. If Google is helping people do that faster, all the better!

While Picscout has been a leading innovator in image-recognition technology, its business is not to help people find images. It’s to help them manage their copyrights. If you’re thinking that you could use Google’s new image-search to do that on your own, consider these points:

FINDING YOUR IMAGES

  • First you have to get Google image search to come up with one of your images in a search (not as easy as it looks), before you can even start with a “similar” search. And then your luck goes downhill faster. As reported by Plagiarism Today, the search isn’t really all that good. But, that’s almost beside the point. Even if it were perfect at finding exact matches, you have to do this for every image you own, one by one. Do you really have that much time on your hands?
  • Picscout tracks entire collections of works… Every day.

FINDING “RELEVANT” USAGES

  • Do you know the difference between a “relevant” use of your images and a big waste of time?
  • Picscout does. And we deliver detailed reports that include the name of the company, a screenshot of the web page that used your image, contact information, and more.

RESOLUTIONS

  • Do you know what to do if you find a match? Most people have no expertise or wherewithal to resolve usage disputes. If you try to contact the company yourself, chances are that you’ll be either ignored or treated poorly. And you’ll discover this only after weeks or months of trying.
  • Picscout works with a select network of specially qualified copyright lawyers that can not only handle your case professionally with the other party, saving you valuable time, but also come up with a satisfactory resolution that doesn’t alienate business relationships.

Sure, there are ways to “find” your images, ranging from dumb luck to brute force searching. But that doesn’t mean a whole lot if nothing is happening. In the end, Picscout is far more than just a great image-recognition tech company. We provide full-service solutions that actually return results.

Bookmark and Share
April 16th, 2009

Jeff Downey, Director of Sales and Business Development to Speak at Paca’s Best Practices Symposium

PicScout has been invited to speak at PACA’s Best Practices Symposium in a session entitled “Where did this image come from?”.

This panel will discuss techniques buyers can use to track down images and what agencies can do to make it easier.

Jeff Downey, Director of Sales and Business Development at PicScout, will present in this session which will take place on Saturday, April 18, 2009, at 4 PM at the Millennium Knickerbocker Hotel.  Chicago is Jeff’s hometown and he is a White Sox fan in case you wondered.

Bookmark and Share