We know that many of you have been following the developments with the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). There has been some confusion over the proposed legislation, which frankly is the intent of the bills' opponents. We wanted to take a moment to correct some of the bad information, and to let you know where we stand.
We were disappointed by some of the heavy-handed tactics used by opponents of the bills. The objective of those tactics was obviously to create fear and hysteria, while at the same time spreading false information about what the bills would actually accomplish. We want you to know the following:
Particularly disturbing to every photographer should be the attempts by Google, Wikipedia and others to define copyright as censorship. The tact is both offensive and intentionally false. Of course, the word "censorship" was chosen by opponents of the legislation for its obvious emotional value. Americans in particular are born with a deep-seated aversion to anything that loosely resembles censorship. Those feelings are amplified in photographers and other creators. After all, you earn a living by SHARING your work, not depriving people of it. So when a behemoth corporate money-maker like Google attempts to stand on the backs of photographers to increase its profits, we as your association take exception. (As a side note, we appreciate all of the words of support you regularly extend to us as we defend those rights.)
It is important to recognize that Google, while it claims to be a friend to copyright, is anything but. PPA is one of several associations joined together in a lawsuit against the search engine giant for illegally scanning and posting copyrighted photographs on the Internet. A similar lawsuit filed by publishers and authors is also underway. It is our opinion that following Google's lead in defending intellectual property is something like depending on the fox to defend the hen house.
That Americans have bought into the false and misleading rhetoric issued over the past few weeks by opponents of the bills is unfortunate. We were surprised that a few creators were swayed by last week's Internet blackout. And we were disappointed that some members of Congress, who are typically more reasoned in their consideration of copyright issues, crumbled in front of the scare tactics used by the bills' opponents.
We will continue our Capitol Hill work on your behalf to educate members of Congress. Copyright is not a "Hollywood issue." The vast majority of copyright holders in the U.S. are small businesses. While Hollywood makes an easy target, the tactic is little more than a smoke screen designed to draw attention away from the true issue—online companies wanting to increase profits at the expense of mom-and-pop creators.
Americans have always valued and defended small-business rights. Each of us must work to be more enlightened about the real issues, and encourage our friends and neighbors not to be led astray by the fear-mongering of Internet bullies. In the meantime, PPA will continue its efforts to defend the rights of photographers now and in the future.
Professional Photographers of America
229 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2200
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-522-8600 | 800-786-6277
Email Member Support
Comments
by Fri Feb 17, 2012
my membership runs out next week and i am NOT signing up again because of the SOPA support.
by Thu Feb 2, 2012
Well, I had decided that 2012 was going to be the year I signed up for a PPA membership, what with the new insurance options and all. But after reading about the PPA's misguided support of these two bills, I've decided to just put that money into other, more productive, use. I cannot monetarily support any organization that supports these bills, and PPA's support of them shows how out of touch the organization is becoming.
by Tue Jan 31, 2012
After careful research and listening to other professionals in this industry, I must rethink my PPA renewal as well.
by Mon Jan 30, 2012
PPA should reconsider support or SOPA/PIPA. I will be reconsidering my membership for sure.
by Mon Jan 30, 2012
I am also deeply troubled that PPA would support these bills (which I have read). Insofar that my membership is currently up for renewal, I have decided not to renew my membership at this time. I hope that PPA will reconsider its position. To be successful as photographers, we need to adapt to reality and stop holding on to the past.
by Sat Jan 28, 2012
A great video discussing the history behind SOPA and PIPA can be viewed at http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html Unlike the PPA article above, it goes into great specifics as to the actual issues and problems involved with bills like this.
by Sat Jan 28, 2012
This is simply foolish and short-sighted. You aim to promote fear by saying MEGA-CORPORATIONS, yet you fail to see that the MEGA-CORPORATIONS like Disney and News Corp are the ones behind the all of SOPA and PIPA! Google has done far more for me as a photographer than any of the lobbyists behind SOPA/PIPA have ever done. And it's not JUST Google. It's other photography companies, like Flickr, Instagram, Smugmug, Facebook all realizing that these bills would do far more harm than good. Goodbye PPA. I've disagreed with many of your copyright fights before, but this is the last straw.
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
I'm appalled that PPA is supporting this. This legislation subtly takes away rights, yet does not really stop people who are seeking to breaking the law anyways. It's about control. We the people, many of us content creators, were the very ones standing against these bills and you have the gall to suggest we're naive, gullible and were fooled. As not only a photographer, but a photographic software maker, a writer, and a podcaster, I am right in the thick of copyright concerns and find PPA'a stance insulting and misleading. We want copyright protection, not our freedom and due process taken away. I like PPA, but I confess that I'm tempted to drop my membership in the face if this. I'm so disappointed right now. Gavin Seim
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
I am curious why the PPA would come out in support of legislation that has been pulled and is now pretty much going back to the drawing board in February. What could you possibly have to gain by releasing the backlash What were you thinking anyway?
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
I think it's great that you have written this article, if only to demonstrate some of the astonishing misconceptions that supporters of these bills are laboring under. You wrote, "Particularly disturbing to every photographer should be the attempts by Google, Wikipedia and others to define copyright as censorship." If ever there was a strawman, this is it. Nobody is doing any such thing! SOPA and PIPA are bad bills because they mandate ill-conceived changes in how the internet Domain Name Service (DNS) works, with entire IP addresses being blocked at the whim of an attorney. Copyright is important to all of us who produce images, written works and even computer software. Piracy can and should be attacked by arresting the pirates. Not by rewriting the map so that they cannot be found.
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
Mr. Trust please tell us all why photographers should back a piece of admittedly flawed legislation at all. Where is the benefit for us, the photographers, in SOPA/PIPA? Laws exist that already allow us to successfully protect our copyright. Why do we need another law that is capable of being abused to CENSOR what we as Americans have access to? Please Mr. Trust... tell us how we benefit instead of telling us how we were fooled. But don't fool yourself into thinking that by publicly supporting SOPA/PIPA that you are representing me or most of the photographers I know.
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
I don't believe I am fooled on this. I'm a photographer and I care about the proper use of what I produce and I still oppose SOPA and PIPA. The problem with these bills is NOT that they prevent one from sharing other peoples material. They are to be opposed on the grounds that they provide for punishment without due process. The mere accusation of infringement is enough to empower the government to shut down your site, seize your assets and put you out of business and leave you with little or no avenue to contest the decision and, even if you could, in many cases the point would be moot given the damage done to your business, its reputation and your name. Whether you're a photographer or other content producer or not that kind of process-free power to harm in the hands of the government should worry you. But what should worry you even more is that even after the failure of these bills the govt is still acting on these powers. The very next day they used powers exactly like these to shut down MegaUpload.Com. Say what you want about that site. Defending what they do is not my point. My point is the due-process-free way in which the action against them was taken. How ironic is it that the day after it was decided that the govt shouldn't have these powers the govt decided to show that it already has them anyway? So what's this law for again? Sorry, I can't agree with you on this one. -ep
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
> We do not feel that the measures were perfect—no legislation is. Because too many times people settle on awful pieces of legislation with enormous drawbacks (like the anti-fair use clauses in the DMCA preventing any sort of DRM workaround) because they're too lazy to get it right the first time. Note that I'm actually a supporter of some aspects of the DMCA; I myself used it to stop some infringement of my photographs, so don't think I'm against everything :) > It is not true that the public would have been deprived of works to which it has rights, but rather, only those works that are copyrighted and being sold illegally by rogue off-shore websites. False. SOPA/PIPA would allow entire websites to be censored from US visitors because a few users of them were posting copyrighted info. And it would allow this to be done without proper judicial oversight. There is no requirement for the website owners to be involved, no safe-harbor if they comply with removal requests like the DMCA allows, nothing. > Particularly disturbing to every photographer should be the attempts by Google, Wikipedia and others to define copyright as censorship. Nobody is trying to define copyright as censorship - the bills WERE censorship - they would require DNS blocking and other sorts of filtering to fully disable access to websites. This would be like China's censorship of the web, all to increase the MPAA/RIAA's bottom line. > We will continue our Capitol Hill work on your behalf to educate members of Congress. Copyright is not a "Hollywood issue." The vast majority of copyright holders in the U.S. are small businesses. While Hollywood makes an easy target, the tactic is little more than a smoke screen designed to draw attention away from the true issue—online companies wanting to increase profits at the expense of mom-and-pop creators. You're not defending small businesses, these bills were completely spearheaded by the MPAA/RIAA to further increase their bonus revenue - it has nothing to do with protecting copyright in general because hey, guess what? - Not one of the "rogue off-shore websites" is infringing on photographer's copyrights - it's always movies/music/tv that is being infringed on :P How dare you represent yourself as defending photographers by supporting internet censorship.
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
I am deeply troubled that PPA supports the SOPA/PIPA bills. The acts could be used to target US/European sites that have nothing to do with infringement. That the heavy-handed nature of the bills is excused as "Well, it isn't right but we have to do something." is just plain wrong. Sites such as the PPA site itself could be taken down by anyone issuing a complaint. Further, the characterization of sites who oppose SOPA/PIPA is awful. Do you really think Wikipedia opposes it because they are afraid of losing money?
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
Just a thought to all the PPA members reading this article...where would the PPA be without our dues? They certainly wouldn't be supporting this kind of thing....guess this is one Pro who will be pulling her support from this organization.
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
And actually, it's VERY obvious those that are posting in support of these Bills HAVE NOT READ IT!
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
Um I hate to argue semantics but, it wasn't Censor that this person was illustrating it was Censorship and that is the act of censoring which is to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. Thus this is censoring friends...legality isn't the problem here. Especially considering that the accused do NOT have to be found guilty of anything prior to the site being censored.
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
I take offense at the assumption that I have not read this Bill. I have read it. I also take offense at someone telling me that I can't make decisions for myself and that the government has only good intentions by trying to take care of things for me. There are laws in place to take care of copyright issues. What is wrong with those laws? This Bill was only instigated by big business - Hollywood basically - because they are upset that they aren't making the billions they used to make instead of the millions they currently make. Through the years, business has had to make changes, re-assess, and move forward or they have gone by the way-side. This is an instance where they need to re-asses and move forward without it becoming a situation of more government control. For someone to think that government having more control of anything at this point is a good thing needs serious help. Name ONE thing... just ONE... that government controls that is working efficiently! Government needs to back off additional laws furthering their control into our lives and our businesses. I DO NOT support SOPA or PIPA. I DO NOT want my dues going to support this type of thing. I WILL be rethinking my membership due to this.
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
This was in an earlier comment..... "(Censorship:1.a policy or programme of censoring 2. the act or system of censoring. Censor: 1.an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. )" You forgot to mention the grounds for which SOPA would be applied...LEGAL. It's not about suppressing things that are objectionable on moral, political or military grounds. It's about suppressing illegal activity in this country.
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
Here’s my position. I shoot commercial imagery and I shoot stock. I have found, and enforced my copyrights on images that have been pirated throughout the world without my permission - sometimes successfully, sometimes not so successfully. If the offending websites are blocked in the U.S., then I will NEVER know if my images are being pirated, and I will not be able to enforce my copyrights. Nobody is going to enforce my copyrights on my behalf…and if I don’t know about it, then I can’t enforce them either. Ignorance of the issue is not bliss…it’s opportunity for those that are stealing, to continue to steal and offer content without my knowing about it. Quite frankly, Google, and Tineye and other search engines have actually HELPED me to find those who are stealing my images. It's a very troubling position in my opinion and I cannot support in good faith.
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
Okay everyone that reads this article I do hope you will take the time to read the actual bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261: If you do it will indeed allow you to form your own true opinion of this legislation designed to quite clearly strip more rights from us. I do not pretend to understand why an organization such as the PPA would support censorship, which if you read just the first articles of this legislation, you will see that this is clearly the intent. (Censorship:1.a policy or programme of censoring 2. the act or system of censoring. Censor: 1.an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. ) This bill does not require that the accused entity be found guilty of the offense prior to being censored. It dictates to private business how they will handle the accused (mind you NOT the guilty). It allows for any type of internet site to be subject to complete shut down by the government in the case of simply an accusation of impropriety. Boy PPA if you are supporting this without having read it you better start having someone there in your offices begin combing through the thousands upon thousands of photos you have on your sight because with the caliber of some of your so called "pro" members I would be willing to bet you have several photos here that would indeed shut this site down in a heart beat. Heck with this legislation someone could just say you do and that would be that. Before you support this kind of thing, best to know how it can affect you and your members don't ya think?
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
Okay everyone that reads this article I do hope you will take the time to read the actual bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261: If you do it will indeed allow you to form your own true opinion of this legislation designed to quite clearly strip more rights from us. I do not pretend to understand why an organization such as the PPA would support censorship, which if you read just the first articles of this legislation, you will see that this is clearly the intent. (Censorship:1.a policy or programme of censoring 2. the act or system of censoring. Censor: 1.an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. ) This bill does not require that the accused entity be found guilty of the offense prior to being censored. It dictates to private business how they will handle the accused (mind you NOT the guilty). It allows for any type of internet site to be subject to complete shut down by the government in the case of simply an accusation of impropriety. Boy PPA if you are supporting this without having read it you better start having someone there in your offices begin combing through the thousands upon thousands of photos you have on your sight because with the caliber of some of your so called "pro" members I would be willing to bet you have several photos here that would indeed shut this site down in a heart beat. Heck with this legislation someone could just say you do and that would be that. Before you support this kind of thing, best to know how it can affect you and your members don't ya think?
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
For those of you wanting some detailed discussion and analysis of SOPA/PIPA, with references, rather than a "copyright lockdown is good for you" marketing blurb, try the following links. Then do your own research and form your own opinion. http://www.lawtechie.com/2011/12/how-sopa-violates-the-first-amendment/ https://maxeyiplaw.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/a-bittersweet-victory-the-ninth-circuit-reaffirms-dmca-protection/ Here's a list of groups and organizations who oppose SOPA/PIPA because they actually understand how the internet works: https://www.cdt.org/report/list-organizations-and-individuals-opposing-sopa And here's a very lengthy, detailed article with case studies, references, and lots of links: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/18/1055849/-Confessions-Of-A-Hollywood-Professional:-Why-I-Cant-Support-the-Stop-Online-Piracy-Act-%28UPDATED%29?detail=hide
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
This posting is dangerous. You are promoting censure. These laws are not written to protect us. It's foolish to think we could use these laws to protect ourselves. I don't wish to be a part of your organization as of this posting.
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
Copyright was originally created in order to reward innovation and creativity. In the past several decades, increasingly misguided laws pushed by the largest media companies have turned copyright into a weapon for crushing innovation and competition. I have followed this topic carefully for many years. If PPA cannot restrain from supporting truly destructive laws such as SOPA and PIPA, while peddling the sort of misinformation in the article above, I will be resigning my PPA membership. I simply cannot in good conscious fund this sort of nonsense. Existing copyright laws already provide more than enough weaponry for copyright holders Inflict devastating damage on anyone that they suspect of copyright infringement. In fact, existing copyright weaponry is widely used to shut down criticism and debate. SOPA would have extended his weaponry to allow copyright holders to shut down entire blocks of the internet without having to prove anything other than they "suspect" that someone may be infringing. Of course, the supporters of the bill deny that this is what would happen. Perhaps then they would like to explain why the bill was written so broadly. But don't take my word for it. Simply spend some time reading articles written by anyone who isn't locked into the "more copyright lockdown is good for you" mindset.
by Fri Jan 27, 2012
Thank you for writing this article. There has been so much mis-information regarding SOPA and PIPA and unfortunately the opponents of the bill have effectively scared away the congress and senate now through the actions their constituents have taken. I am willing to be that most of those who so aggressively opposed these bills never actually took the time to actually read the bill or even try to learn what they were opposing. The thing that should scare people most of all from this situation is that Google and Wikipedia have managed to bring down two potential pieces of legislation -- simply because of the mass hysteria they have caused based on intentionally misinforming the public so the public's knee jerk reaction (calling congress, senate, etc) would accomplish just that. When did people stop using their own minds to make their own decisions about what's right and wrong?? People also need to remember that once they have supported or not supported anything publicly on the internet -- it's out there. So, at the very least you would think the general public might want to learn enough about something so they can defend/support their decision. I do wish your statement might have come out a bit earlier -- to enlighten those who might had who had jumped on the bandwagon simply because Google and Wikipedia said to jump on -- but truly appreciate at least being able to direct many of those misinformed to the summary you have written.