LadyIslay wrote:What if a political party wants to use a photograph of your children in their propaganda?
From what I understand, there are reasons unrelated to copyright to block this. The subject of the photo (or legal guardian, in this case) would have to sign a release to allow use of the photo. It wouldn't matter who owned the copyright. For example, in man-on-the-street interviews, like this
, the TV program recording the footage would own the copyright, but the person they're taping had to sign a release to allow them to use it.
An artist should never, ever be forced to have to license your work, at any cost. There are so many reasonable grounds for refusing a license. What if you object to the ethical practices of the person or corporation that wants to license it? What if a competitor wants to license your work for profit, putting your own business at risk? What if you’re a vegan animal rights activist, and the beef industry decides they want to use a song you composed for their latest media campaign?
You raise an interesting question here. On one hand, while you may find someone's use of your work offensive, I don't think people have a right to not be offended. On the other hand, what about the right to decide who you do and don't do business with?
LadyIslay wrote:4) Requiring up-to-date contact information to be on file is a good idea, but it puts the burden on the artist rather than the party that wants to use what properly belongs to the artist. What if they just don’t want to license their work to anyone? I have been very, very frustrated by publishers that don’t respond to my requests for reprinting out of print sheet music. A fairer solution to this problem is that if the copyright holder complains, but the user can demonstrate that they practiced due diligence and attempted to contact the copyright holder, then they should be exempt from exaggerated penalties. For example, if a church choir gets caught with 20 unpaid photocopies of an out-of-print anthem, but they can demonstrate that they did try to contact the publisher through the publisher’s advertised email or web-form to pay for the works but the publisher never responded, then the choir should be exempt from any legal fees or fines, though they should still have to pay the standard “print-on-demand” fee or the cover price of the work when it had been in print.
Wouldn't this be in conflict with point number 3? What if the publisher or composer didn't want that church using that anthem?