Gambo and T_Wil1 Photopack

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by ortforshort

Interesting Link:

https://www.alternet.org/2020/12/hou...9797&list_id=2

Here is the text of H.R. 2426, the source act for the embedded provisions described in the link from the post above (which is a safe click, btw).

I looked into the CASE act in 2019 when it was last brought up for potential vote. There are steps described in the bill (§ 1505.a.1, § 1505.a.2. § 1505.b.1.A, and § 1505.b.1.B) that define a clear process for any potential action. In my reading, it gives structure to takedown requests and creates defined penalties (§ 1504.e) if legitimate requests are ignored.

Now that the CASE act has been passed into law (EDIT: I got ahead of myself, as of this edit there is still a chance the bill will be vetoed), it will be interesting to watch the initial test cases to see what effects it will have Internet-wide.

[rrb77]

1948,51,54 NY Giants....from ebay seller jcm331

[rrb77]

1943,45 Cleveland Indians...from ebay seller jcm331

[Buster Narum]

Originally Posted by tnfoto

it will be interesting to watch the initial test cases to see what effects it will have Internet-wide.

Based on the experience of others that I've already seen in business, the result will be the creation of a cottage industry of "bounty hunters" who will track violations and share the damages with the copyright holders.

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by Buster Narum

Based on the experience of others that I've already seen in business, the result will be the creation of a cottage industry of "bounty hunters" who will track violations and share the damages with the copyright holders.

I think you're right; I also think that baseball images used for identification, such as those shared here, are not typically the type that would be the target of bounty hunters. Even so, I'll be closely watching the practical application of the new law when and if it is enacted.

[ortforshort]

Originally Posted by tnfoto

I think you're right; I also think that baseball images used for identification, such as those shared here, are not typically the type that would be the target of bounty hunters. Even so, I'll be closely watching the practical application of the new law when and if it is enacted.

The big image houses are going to gather up every image and make you pay. The big boys want to monetize everything on the web and make it theirs,


In the past, if you weren't making money on an image or it wasn't something that they were making money on, what could they really sue you for? Wasn't worth it. Now at $30,000 a pop, it will be more than worth it for any image posted on the web.


This is just another step in the process of taking the web away from the people and handing it over to corporations. And if it can't make money for one of the big boys, you won't be seeing it on the web - that's the plan and that's they way it's all heading. Every single law in my lifetime has been to take away my freedoms and my money (and hand it over to the rich or large corporations) and this is just another inevitable step in that direction.



Hopefully Trump's veto gets this abomination out of the bill this time. A stay of execution for us.

[Buster Narum]

Originally Posted by tnfoto

I'll be closely watching the practical application of the new law when and if it is enacted.

Look here where it describes "Copyright enforcement and controversy" - that information is consistent with my experience. No need to prove damages, only use. No more reliance on "cease and desist" letters, just instant damages. This is a way to cash in on things that otherwise have little value to anyone.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images

[Cusick]

Taking time out from the serious discussion of copyrights, I've posted an image of Santa (Ed Santa) on the minor league forum. It's on the following page:

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...16619&page=176

Christmas greetings to all!

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by ortforshort

The big image houses are going to gather up every image and make you pay. The big boys want to monetize everything on the web and make it theirs,

It's true, Getty may be further emboldened by this new legislation.

Originally Posted by ortforshort

In the past, if you weren't making money on an image or it wasn't something that they were making money on, what could they really sue you for? Wasn't worth it. Now at $30,000 a pop, it will be more than worth it for any image posted on the web.

$30,000 "a pop" is not entirely accurate. Within the Act in question, § 1504.e.1.A.ii.I specifies a maximum of $15,000 per work infringed, and § 1504.e.1.A.ii.II clarifies that if a work is not "timely registered" under 17 US Code § 412, the maximum is $7,500 per work infringed, up to $15,000 in any one hearing. Further, § 1504.e.1.D sets a maximum of $30,000 per "proceeding" not per work (or "pop").

Originally Posted by Buster Narum

Look here where it describes "Copyright enforcement and controversy" - that information is consistent with my experience. No need to prove damages, only use. No more reliance on "cease and desist" letters, just instant damages. This is a way to cash in on things that otherwise have little value to anyone.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images

While existing copyright provisions such as those previously used by Getty will remain unchanged, this Act (linked above) does not allow for their decade-old tactic of rushing to the courthouse, or to the debt collector. In order to enforce any of the permissible remedies in the copyright sections, there is a notice-response-hearing process clearly defined in § 1505.a.1, § 1505.a.2. § 1505.b.1.A, and § 1505.b.1.B.

Even so, I'm sure there will be an exploitable loophole or weakness in the system that will be tested early on.

[ortforshort]

Originally Posted by tnfoto

It's true, Getty may be further emboldened by this new legislation.



$30,000 "a pop" is not entirely accurate. Within the Act in question, § 1504.e.1.A.ii.I specifies a maximum of $15,000 per work infringed, and § 1504.e.1.A.ii.II clarifies that if a work is not "timely registered" under 17 US Code § 412, the maximum is $7,500 per work infringed, up to $15,000 in any one hearing. Further, § 1504.e.1.D sets a maximum of $30,000 per "proceeding" not per work (or "pop").



While existing copyright provisions such as those previously used by Getty will remain unchanged, this Act (linked above) does not allow for their decade-old tactic of rushing to the courthouse, or to the debt collector. In order to enforce any of the permissible remedies in the copyright sections, there is a notice-response-hearing process clearly defined in § 1505.a.1, § 1505.a.2. § 1505.b.1.A, and § 1505.b.1.B.

Even so, I'm sure there will be an exploitable loophole or weakness in the system that will be tested early on.

Sorry about that, I stopped reading after the $30,000. Even at $7500, we get the gist of what they're trying to do.

[rlumpkin1@tampabay.rr.com]

Any photos of Len Barker as a brewer other than 1994 Miller card? Thanks to any response.

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by rlumpkin1@tampabay.rr.com

Any photos of Len Barker as a brewer other than 1994 Miller card? Thanks to any response.

Here are several non-Miller options.

[Terry D]

Originally Posted by rlumpkin1@tampabay.rr.com

Any photos of Len Barker as a brewer other than 1994 Miller card? Thanks to any response.

Here is a color shot from a Brewers team photo. The other guy in front of Len is Juan Nieves.

Speaking of the Brewers, I am looking for non-Miller shots of Paul Hartzell, Ray Krawczyk, and Dave Huppert.

[Expos 1969-2004]

1911 New York Highlanders

[cinemaodyssey]

Pictured while playing with the Bucknell University baseball team.

[Expos 1969-2004]

Outfielder Red Murray played in 51 games for the Cubs during the 1915 season.

[Dto7]

Dean Sturgis 1914 Philadelphia Athletics

[sorcabul]

Does anyone have a better (higher res) version of this?

[cinemaodyssey]

Nice front-facing Red Sox option for Sullivan, circa 1908.

[cinemaodyssey]

Here's a decent Red Sox option, circa 1908.