Jump to content

Copyright Assault in UK


pico

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Signed.

 

I do use Flickr and any other images I upload (facebook, twitter) are mostly snapshots taken on the phone just for fun, so unlikely to be used by anyone else!

 

There's a few issues here - if you find someone has used your image without authority presumably you still have the right to take legal action for compensation?

 

The user has to undertake some form of search to find the copyright holder, so if say the image is ONLY posted on your own website or flickr page, then it will be fairly easy to prove that they used it without trying to seek permission.

 

I'm sure I read about this some time back and there will be some body who will award compensation also?

 

I'm not fully aware of the reasons for the change in law, presumably there is a particular purpose/motive behind it? Again, I seem to recall something to do with use of archives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to signing the petition (thanks for the link Andy) I'd urge anyone who has a Facebook page to share the link on there.

Already done, and I have deleted all my pictures on Facebook and 500 px (and right click protected my website.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

James, I suspect the reaction to this proposed piece of barbarism does slightly undervalue the import of the "diligent" search. Diligent ought to mean more than two clicks on Google, so even if the act passes into legislation, there may well be strong grounds for contesting this.

 

But I hope its sorted out before it becomes law and needs to be contested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As James has said, if there are only a finite number of web sites an image can have been taken from the excuse that all efforts to find the copyright holder failed wouldn't stand up. So I think it is a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face in deleting images from web sites that are presumably used to aid communication and engagement in the real world, not just to feed the world of the fevered imagination about what might happen.

 

This Bill that may go before Parliament clearly has a lot of areas where it can be abused and shouldn't go through as it stands. But the intent, as I understand it, is somewhat different to what is being presented here. The past two hundred years have been documented in film and photography, and much of that social history, our history, is unaccredited, annonymous photographs in public collections that cannot be used in publications or research because any link to the originator has been lost for ever. So as it stands this vast social resource is in limbo, nothing can be proved or disproved about its copyright status. The Bill is 'intended' to unblock this dam, not to allow people to ride roughshod over copyright law. Far different to the imagined purpose of the Bill.

 

Anyway, petition signed.

 

Steve

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem comes when someone nicks a photo from your Flickr account and then someone else nicks it from them and so on. It's a bit like photo-laundering.

 

Eventually, the final person can't tell who the rightful owner is.

 

The whole thing stinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does stink, but I will not allow myself to be driven by unwarranted panic and 'what if'.

 

I mean, seriously, how much realistically do you imagine anybody is going to loose in income by a photograph being stolen then used for commercial purposes? The income from stock agencies nowadays is so low that it would hardly register, if it was used as part of a multi million pound ad campaign you'd see it and be able to claim damages. There is nothing right about stealing an image, but the chances of it happening are very slim indeed.

 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Steve, you make some very good points that have helped me understand the thinking behind the bill a little better.

 

Clearly there are issues that need to be identified, clarified and resolved, and as is always the case, there's more than one side to the argument. I also agree that the probability of material loss is very small indeed.

 

But as is often the case, even bills that result from good intentions need some very thorough working out, and it appears that there's a lot of work to be done before this rather muddle-headed bill emerges as something that photographers and the general public will value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I started a thread here about this rather insidious piece of proposed legislation over a week ago. I can only guess most here think they will remain unaffected or are unbothered by the implications of the ERRB. The fact is, if you have uploaded images to the internet there will be 'orphaned' versions floating around waiting to be exploited. Deleting images from your Facebook page, Flickr or any other account isn't going to save you. It's too late if you have been stupid enough to upload anything of value without a watermark or Digimarc and this piece of crap goes through to be passed as Law.

 

Let this Government get away with with it and you may rest assured that someone, somewhere, will profit from your 'art'.

 

Signing the e-petition is a start. Now try this:

 

Write to Viscount Younger of Leckie, the Minister for Intellectual Property Viscount Younger of Leckie - UK Parliament

 

Asking for the Orphan Works and Extended Collective Licensing Clause 79 to be removed from the ERR Bill, to return responsibility for copyright to the Department for Culture, Media & Sport and that a separate Intellectual Property Bill be considered.

 

As I posted in the other thread, David Bailey took the lead. There is still time to follow:

The Copyright Fight – David Bailey weighs in… | TheBPPA

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO it's not any loss of income that's the point here. It's the principle of the idea that anyone is entitled to use something they "found" on the Internet, for whatever purpose they like, if they haven't done more than a cursory search to find out who owns that something.

 

This is stupid and unfair legislation and if only for that reason, should be resisted.

 

What next?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is most certainly not a worldwide issue, any more than it already is. These laws do not impact in any way on my Australian rights or the agreements made under the Berne conventions on copyright. I can still chase copyright infringers if I want.

 

The real issues haven't changed though. While I can still sue and chase stolen images it's still just too difficult and expensive for the average photographer to do so. If some one in the UK steals one of my shots, unless it's a huge company, capable of making a huge settlement, this law hasn't made it any easier or more difficult for me, in the real world.

 

Certainly, in the UK, this is a real worry as it's just a legislated defence for big business to steal stuff as they see fit. Any law with the words, "satisfactory", "appropriate" or "reasonable" is almost always a bad law, IMHO. It also opens the gates for other countries to be bullied into similar laws. I'd hope that in the UK there's an outcry. But it'll probably just dissapear as quickly as the rights of innocents that the laws removes.

 

Gordon

 

It is a worldwide issue in as much as the Act will allow companies and individuals in the UK to use an image, regardless of where it was shot and by whatever nationality, to use an image that fits within the orphan works description, easily and without payment. They need to show they searched for the owner. Orphan works are images where ownership cannot be established. Considering the majority of internet sites (I bet this blog too) strips out metadata, if that image was to be taken off that website, then the owner would not be known. Billions of images! The hub the government wants to set up means then that the person wanting to use the image pays them a going market rate and the photographer gets nothing. If the author of the image comes forward, then the government will decide the market rate for the image and pay the photographer. In essence, a government who has no respect for photography, is setting the photographers' rates! As we all know, not all images are the same and not all photographers are the same. People have different rate cards and licensing rates. Well, no more as the government wants to dictate it.

This also ruins any exclusive licensing that could have been done when the government starts to get paid for your images taken from the net by third parties. I can foresee some very unhappy clients!

 

Very worrying overall.

 

Edmond

Link to post
Share on other sites

On teh subject of that particular petition, an initiative was taken by a young wildlife photographer who drew up the petition. I've had a chat with him, so I'm not talking behind anyone's back, but the petition has several faults. It does not mention the Act and misses some vital points. I'm hopeful one of the professional associations is drawing up a proper petition, so whilst I suggest everyone sign the petition already posted, please do also sign a future one which will be more effective. Parliament officers have already said they don't understand what the petition is for; needless to say the MPs will be looking for an excuse to ignore it and get their way.

 

Edmond

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know for certain who is actually the hidden force which has successfully lobbied the Government? I doubt any minister has a personal vested interest in the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO it's not any loss of income that's the point here. It's the principle of the idea that anyone is entitled to use something they "found" on the Internet, for whatever purpose they like, if they haven't done more than a cursory search to find out who owns that something.

 

This is stupid and unfair legislation and if only for that reason, should be resisted.

 

What next?

 

Andy, this is not just about the internet, hence the unnecessary need to delete your life's work in a panic. It may just as well apply to an unsigned print you may have sold, given away, or had stolen. Neither has it happened yet, and even if it did happen its not going to be for a long time. And if you are worried about somebody stealing your picture from the internet, then somebody else stealing it from them (and even if it is still at a usable resolution) and then getting away with it, you would have more chance of winning the Lottery at 14 million to 1, or whatever it is, even if it was the best picture in the world.

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record, I haven't deleted anything from the Internet.

 

Just because I haven't doesn't mean that I think it's a very bad proposal. Some people have lots of stuff worth stealing. I don't.

 

The only photo I have ever had stolen was given to a different party on a CD.

Edited by andybarton
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO it's not any loss of income that's the point here. It's the principle of the idea that anyone is entitled to use something they "found" on the Internet....

 

It's very much to do with loss of income for those of us whose entire livelihood is derived from sales of our images. As someone who has experienced both theft of copyright and unauthorised use of (MY!) orphaned work, once discovered the effect is startling and potentially damaging to future sales. The most recent instance for me that I know of was when attending a well-known annual UK exhibition a few years ago, I took a break from speaking on the Nikon stand to have a look round the exhibition and discovered that one of my landscape images had been incorporated into a composite piece of wall art in the form of an acrylic folding room divider. This was being displayed on an interior decor specialist printer's stand whom I had never supplied with images or had any contact with previously. Long story short, my work had been 'discovered' by a graphic designer who helped himself to mine and other photographer's images from a blog which he then used to create his portfolio. The blogger had lifted my work from a US art gallery website that represented me at that time.

 

I accept that the majority on this forum might not be interested in selling their work and may not be too bothered about unauthorised use of their images. Some might even be flattered to discover their work has been used, but for those of us who need to sell images to earn a living, this legislation has serious and far-reaching detrimental implications.

 

I would defend anyone's right to safeguard their property, whether material, artistic or intellectual, as well as their pension investment. That is what my images mean to me, my colleagues and many non-professional image makers who have value in their work. The ERR needs to be killed immediately.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Google probably... (Just guessing)

Google, who have aroused the ire of Parliamentary finance committees for famously avoiding paying corporation tax on profits made in this country? Who on the fringes can tell? I would be disappointed if Google have winkled out influence in high places in the face of ongoing tax controversies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...