There is a bill before congress right now which could have serious
implications for all of us who ever sell or publicly display our
photographs. It is HR683, the Trademark Dilution Revision Act.
If enacted as law, this would seriously restrict our right to
photograph anything bearing a registered trademark, or anything that
is itself a trademark. An example below is Volkswagen's stated
intention to sue an artist who made a whimsical drawing of a
Volkswagen beetle made up of bugs. Using cars, motorcycles, kitchen
appliances, you name it, as props in our photos could put us at risk
of ruinous lawsuits.
With permission, I am reposting a message from PPA's Jack Reznicki
that was posted earlier today on the Photo News Network forums
(www.PhotoNews.net). I think all of us who live in the USA and are
concerned over losing our rights as photographers need to take action
by contacting our representatives and urging them to vote NO on this
ludicrous bit of legislation.
Bob
Good for ASMP for getting behind this. And like ASMP, PPA urges
everyone to write to their legislators.
Just so everyone knows, PPA joined a coalition of associations to
oppose this legislation in Washington. We urge ASMP to also join this
coalition in Washington so we have more numbers to push our views
forward.
The coalition is interesting in that it's a group that sometimes find
themselves at opposite sides of copyright issues, like the American
Library Association. But because we feel this is an onerous bill for
photographers and as everyone knows, numbers count in Washington when
lobbying, PPA felt that it was important to join others in fighting
this bill.
The coalition consists of - American Library Association, Electronic
Frontier Foundation ,National Video Resources, Professional
Photographers of America, Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, Society
of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators
You can read the statement this coalition sent to Congress at
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Judiciary%20Committee%20letter%20on
%20H.R.%20683.pdf
For those interested, below is the post I posted on PPA's Forum and a
letter by attorney Ed Greenberg that's been posted on several
websites that further explains the issues with this bill.
----------------------
Hey all,
<snip>
PPA signed on to oppose HR 683 on Friday, before it went to the
Judiciary Committee. It's vital that Congress sees that we are there
and that we have a voice. We await the outcome of HR 683
Kudos to Stephen Morris and the Copyright department at PPA for
standing up and helping oppose this bill. It's not just about what we
want to get done, but also about opposing bills that erode our rights
as photographers.
Below is a letter written by copyright lawyer Edward Greenberg that
outlines what HR 683 was about and why it would affect photographers.
When you read the letter, understand that photographing a Senior or a
family next to a car while doing something "whimsical" could be
prevented by the car company if this bill passes. This would also
translate to any product- a toaster, a musical instrument, anything
produced by a corporation.
Jack
-------------------
A few weeks ago I referenced a proposed new Trademark law formally
entitled "HR 683 - the Trademark Dilution Revision Act". It passed in
the House of Representatives and is under consideration by the
Judiciary Committee.
Now stay with me, don't get bored. This is important.
The Act contains certain anti-speech aspects which will directly
affect illustrators, photographers and others.
It will serve to eliminate the current protection for non-commercial
speech currently contained in the Lanham Act. It will prevent
businesses (artists) and consumers from invoking famous trademarks to
explain their discussion of public issues.
For example, using the phrase "Where's the Beef" could be actionable.
Although you might use it in a non-commercial way, the (very) famous
Wendy's slogan when used to comment might not be protected by the
fair use exception.
The Act would give companies leverage in preventing artists from
using their marks by claiming the mark is being "diluted". The bigger
the company, the more famous the trademark, the easier it will be to
prevent you guys from using it. National companies with highly
recognizable marks would have more leverage than any single artist
and would easily outspend any of you to prevent your using their mark.
Exceptions for fair use, non-commercial use, reportage, commentary,
etc. currently existing could disappear and would be no defense to
claim of infringement of a registered mark.
To see how this new legislation might operate, go to
www.dsart.com/Gallery/VW_bug.htm. That illustration was created by
Donald Stuart in 1992. Mr. Stuart has displayed the work to students
in classes and used as a teaching tool. The image has also been sold.
VW of America has threatened Mr. Stuart with litigation in
anticipation of the new law. The Volkswagen Beetle is composed of
bugs.
The illustration does not disparage VW in any way. It is lighthearted
and whimsical.
I dare say most if not all of you, have created works which like Mr.
Stuart's, are not disparaging and employ some recognizable mark.
As written, strong case have/could be made against candidates who
have used popular marks to comment on their opponents. This is not a
right wing/left wing thing. It is a free speech, little guy against
big guy thing. Your artistic freedom is at risk.
I urge all of you to write to Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, 711 Hart Building, Washington, DC 20510
to voice your opposition to this bill.
Mr. Stuart is ably represented by Paul Alan Levy, Esq. who is with
Public Citizen Litigation Group, 1600-20th Street, NW Washington DC
20009 www.citizen.org/litigation. He has taken an active role in
fighting this proposed legislation and deserves your vocal support.
This is your livelihood we are talking about here. Don't bitch about
corporate coercion, do something about it. Send a letter or better,
send an illustration accompanied by a short note. You guys get paid
to use art to sell products and ideas and to get people's attention.
Get Senator Specter's attention.
Edward C. Greenberg
Erica Galinski
Greenberg & Reicher, LLP
50 East 42nd St. 17th floor
New York, NY 10017
212.697.8777
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________
Jack Reznicki
