The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement

[Johnnie5]

The U.S. is currently negotiating a new free trade agreement.  It is called The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.  The negotiations are secret so the only documents available have been leaked.  Part of the agreement covers Intellectual Property rights and extension of Copyright.  This website is vehemently against it, but it sounds like a positive step for photographers and other content providers.  I would be nice if there were more countries as signatories to the treaty as it would require them to adopt U.S. copyright laws.  Trade unions here in the U.S. are opposed to the agreement, probably with good reason as it open up new countries for exploitation by business and the offshoring of factories and jobs.  Millions of good paying manufacturing jobs have left the country now and wages here are at a historical low.  I thought this may be of interest to all the content providers here.  You can Google TPP for more info.  Here is a BBC article.

[Inchiquin]

I'm guessing this is equivalent to the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) which the US is currently negotiating with the EU. This has also been kept secret for a very good reason: if the public were aware of what is proposed they would be outraged. Among other things, the agreement would hand over power to global corporations by giving them the right to take legal action against governments if they don't like government policy.

 

Alan

[Cribb Visuals]

I think the original poster must think that Europeans are living in the dark ages regarding copyright law. Excuse the sarcastic note. I believe that copyright law as applied in the EU is at least as strong as that in the USA.

[Bill Brooks]

 Among other things, the agreement would hand over power to global corporations by giving them the right to take legal action against governments if they don't like government policy.

 

Alan

 

Canada and the USA had free trade in automobiles. Then that was extended to the North America Free Trade (NAFTA) agreement in most products between USA, Canada, Mexico.

 

Overall it has been a good thing for all 3 countries. However large multinational companies on both sides of the borders have tried to use the agreement to impose policy on the other sovereign foreign government.

 

A case in point is the NAFTA softwood lumber dispute between US and Canadian producers. Government timber leases are cheaper in Canada than the USA. Canadian producers are more efficient. Canadian producers also do not have the burden of providing medical insurance for employees, as Canada has universal medicare. Therefore Canadian timber is cheaper than US timber in the USA.

 

US timber producers sued under the NAFTA agreement. The mechanism of the NAFTA agreement allowed these differences, but it took an army of lawyers many years to resolve in Canada's favor.

 

It is Canada's sovereign right to set their own prices for timber leases, to be more efficient, and to have Medicare. The last I heard the US producers have appealed the ruling under NAFTA. They will not win, but it gives US producers a chance to throw the "level playing field" wrench in the Canadian works, if they are loosing the economic game.

 

NAFTA gives American consumers cheaper houses, because they are full of cheaper Canadian lumber. Canadian consumers get cheaper cars while still retaining auto manufacturing jobs. Only two examples.

 

Don't worry, be happy, you will like it. NAFTA works for efficient industries in efficient economies. Free trade works like that.

[Johnnie5]

I think the original poster must think that Europeans are living in the dark ages regarding copyright law. Excuse the sarcastic note. I believe that copyright law as applied in the EU is at least as strong as that in the USA.

Actually what I was thinking is that if the participating countries in the treaty sign the agreement it would allow photographers from one of the countries to go after infringements in the other countries with the same system that is being used in the U.S.  I hope it would allow penalties against infringing parties and also help open up new markets that many people don't want to do business with because of a lack of protection.  I have no first hand knowledge of EU copyright law, but I have gotten a sense from this and other forums that U.S. copyright law is a bit stronger.

[Cribb Visuals]

True enough. Good point. Bearing in mind that it depends on how much justice one can afford (at least in the US where I live).

[Lionel]

You can already pursue foreign infringers in many countries - go take a look at www.ImageRights.Com; not perfect, not all countries, but it's better than nothing.  And WIPO has ongoing negotiations pretty much all the time, so if you want a system that has a very high degree of buy-in, and therefore a higher level of voluntary compliance, you don't want one set of negotiations to compromise the other.  If you know a little history, you'll know that the whole question of copyright is tinged with more than a little irony.

 

Regards

Lionel - headed off my soap box now

[spacecadet]

 Bearing in mind that it depends on how much justice one can afford (at least in the US where I live).

England now has a small claims track for copyright, very affordable for claims under £10,000.

[TABan]

The problem with U.S. copyright law is you can only collect statutory damages if you register your copyright. If you don't, you can only collect actual damages. We're the only signatory of the Berne Convention that does this as far as I know.