New Copyright Law in the UK

st599 said:
The enabling act was signed into law last week. SIs will follow with the actual laws.

Nothing to stop someone removing a watermark and EXIF and claiming it is orphaned.
Click to expand...

It won't work like that. If you have a website with your work on it, and someone claims to find an orphaned image, the search for that image will bring up your site. If they claim it didn't, a court of law will immediately find in your favour, because if you own a domain that displays the image, then that will be enough to prove that it has a large presence on the web.

The register article is massively reactionary.
 
Well this was kept quiet......

Media blackout by any chance?

Kinda like when 20'000+ bikers ran a rolling protest about the EUs proposed bike modification laws, despite the chaos they managed to cause on the roads, the media blanked it completely, as if it never happened.
 
Last edited:
This is another way off ruining photography! That you have to be weary where your images go on the internet because so low life can mass produce them without you knowing! Iam 15 it makes you wonder what hope I have off becoming a Pro Photographer in the future with all these laws, Now where i advertise my work to contacts etc. on flickr i have to be aware that someone doesn't have my image and print it 1000's of times without me knowing!
 
Surely only uploading small sized images on the web isn't going to create opportunities for any worthwhile theft, anyone fancy an A3 from an 800 pixel shot :D
 
artyman said:
Surely only uploading small sized images on the web isn't going to create opportunities for any worthwhile theft, anyone fancy an A3 from an 800 pixel shot :D
Click to expand...

This ^^ is the thing, keep images small enough to be useless, but big enough to see...... And then watermark the ****** out of them!
 
Lyonspride said:
Well this was kept quiet......

Media blackout by any chance?

Kinda like when 20'000+ bikers ran a rolling protest about the EUs proposed bike modification laws, despite the chaos they managed to cause on the roads, the media blanked it completely, as if it never happened.
Click to expand...

When it comes to tech I'd guess its a combination of vested interest and ignorance in the media

The most obvious example to me is the level of compensation that companies have been able to go after for illegal dowloading. For highstreet thieft with a clear and obvious loss of product/sales your looking at relatively minor amounts companies can reclaim from offenders, for downloading your looking at compensation thousands of times the value of the product.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Nothing is stopping you doing that now under the old rules.

It's still fraud and infringement.


Steve.
Click to expand...

In your opinion is this law bad news or not really worth the worry?

I realise it would be illegal either way you swing it, but, are they essentially making it easier to get away with it unpunished?
 
Me²;5539667 said:
In your opinion is this law bad news or not really worth the worry?
Click to expand...

Not sure really. I don't actually think it will change much at all.

The fact that it tells people that they have to do a due diligence search for the copyright owner might actually teach some people about copyright.


Steve.
 
Just to correct an error in the article and one others seem to make Flickr DO NOT strip out exif data, it's in the action drop down menu.
 
acetone said:
Just to correct an error in the article and one others seem to make Flickr DO NOT strip out exif data, it's in the action drop down menu.
Click to expand...

Just to correct you, Flickr DOES strip out the Exif in everything apart from the original file.
 
Guys. Argue all you want. But this is done. In a few weeks it will be law. Even if it wasn't the US version of this and the international nature of the 'net makes it all pretty academic.

I'm not saying it's right, but it's done.

Move on. Find ways to make a living that don't involve enforcing copyright. Because the age of copyright is pretty much over.
 
I think the main difference this is going to make for me is that I'm going to move my watermark and make it slightly more complex - removal of watermark is going to be provable and whilst it would be a ball ache to try and prove any particular person did it, I know a great deal of places that would try this already do do this on an 'if caught we'll pay' approach.
 
London Headshots said:
It won't work like that. If you have a website with your work on it, and someone claims to find an orphaned image, the search for that image will bring up your site. If they claim it didn't, a court of law will immediately find in your favour, because if you own a domain that displays the image, then that will be enough to prove that it has a large presence on the web.

The register article is massively reactionary.
Click to expand...

Exactly that :thumbs:

The key words in this are "diligent search" and until that's been tested.......
 
Orphan works could be used to an advantage if you have photos from years ago and you're not quite sure who they were taken by. It means you can exploit them commercially until the true owner pops up their head. If they're dead then they won't. As long as you put a method of contact on them then you can use them as much as you like.

Charity shops and car boot sales could be the new way to make money.

If Plus acts like Getty who been in ruthlessly seeking out and prosecuting infringers then it could actually work to photographers advantage if registered work guarantees there is an agency that goes after them with such rigour.
 
Last edited:
JonathanRyan said:
Guys. Argue all you want. But this is done. In a few weeks it will be law. Even if it wasn't the US version of this and the international nature of the 'net makes it all pretty academic.

I'm not saying it's right, but it's done.

Move on. Find ways to make a living that don't involve enforcing copyright. Because the age of copyright is pretty much over.
Click to expand...

Details haven't yet been finalised, it could still be aborted.
 
WillNicholls said:
Details haven't yet been finalised, it could still be aborted.
Click to expand...

Parliament has not voted down a statutory instrument since 1979, so the political process is probably now a formality.
Click to expand...

And UK politics have hardly become more liberal since 1979......

[YOUTUBE]tERvBT7_F8A[/YOUTUBE]
 
WillNicholls said:
Petition has been approved!

Final details haven't been sorted yet, so could still be aborted.

Please sign and spread the word. Worth a shot!
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49422
Click to expand...

There is nothing to stop people simply removing data embedded in digital files and pleading ignorance to the original author of the work.
Click to expand...

If you can show that an image search returns your website / flickr account / Getty or Alamo the cuplrit will be found to be at fault, won't they not?
 
Rapscallion said:
If you can show that an image search returns your website / flickr account / Getty or Alamo the cuplrit will be found to be at fault, won't they not?
Click to expand...

can you search for an image that is on FB?
 
tiler65 said:
can you search for an image that is on FB?
Click to expand...

Not sure how many photographers who care about copyright only put their work on facebook!

If i put my work on my flickr page as well as my web page, i think i would be safely guarded against a rogue user claiming they had done a diligent search, but if somebidy thinks otherwise id be interested how things could be different.
 
Rapscallion said:
If you can show that an image search returns your website / flickr account / Getty or Alamo the cuplrit will be found to be at fault, won't they not?
Click to expand...

An image won't show up on Google image search if the crop has been changed.
 
Rapscallion said:
Not sure how many photographers who care about copyright only put their work on facebook!
Click to expand...

But that isn't the point - so you are saying that if I only post images to FB, I am surrendering my right to own copyright?

There are millions of images on FB that can be downloaded without trace and this where the problem is because the downloadee can claim 'orphaned' work and pass said shot off as their own for gain.

It shouldn't matter what medium a photo (or any artistic work for that matter) is on, to have protection.
 
tiler65 said:
But that isn't the point - so you are saying that if I only post images to FB, I am surrendering my right to own copyright?

There are millions of images on FB that can be downloaded without trace and this where the problem is because the downloadee can claim 'orphaned' work and pass said shot off as their own for gain.

It shouldn't matter what medium a photo (or any artistic work for that matter) is on, to have protection.
Click to expand...

Tom that's not what im saying (and quite a leap to get there!). This maybe the prompt that is needed to get the various photo storage places ie flickr, facebook et al to ensure that they keep all metadata to their pictures.

The key IMHO to the discussion is the definition of dilligent search, and how that searhc can be performed in the future.

EDIT

Also, what does a photographer need to do to register a work? Will it be a simple upload to your account at a central database? Will it cost?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting stuff, with regards to a diligent search I was intrigued if I could easily trace the owner of an image I've completely lost control of (to the point of it being for sale across the world on canvases, used on album covers, used on TV screens for product shots etc, all without me earning a penny from it)

This one, if anyone is interested: http://SPAM/bmc99ws

It took me about 20 seconds to find a link to the Flickr account of who is clearly the owner of the shot (me), and also ironically to my username on Talk Photography.
 
ukaskew said:
Interesting stuff, with regards to a diligent search I was intrigued if I could easily trace the owner of an image I've completely lost control of (to the point of it being for sale across the world on canvases, used on album covers, used on TV screens for product shots etc, all without me earning a penny from it)

This one, if anyone is interested: http://SPAM/bmc99ws

It took me about 20 seconds to find a link to the Flickr account of who is clearly the owner of the shot (me), and also ironically to my username on Talk Photography.
Click to expand...

Potentially that's a worst case scenario considering how far its spread. Out of interest, is it as easy to search a cropped copy of that picture, as demilion has said that cropping removes the ability to image search?
 
Rapscallion said:
Potentially that's a worst case scenario considering how far its spread. Out of interest, is it as easy to search a cropped copy of that picture, as demilion has said that cropping removes the ability to image search?
Click to expand...

That's why I thought it would be a good example for this purpose, as it's 'gone global' but I've never actually posted it online in many places myself.

I've tried different versions and usually end up back at myself, including flipped, re-coloured and cropped copies.
 
ukaskew said:
Interesting stuff, with regards to a diligent search I was intrigued if I could easily trace the owner of an image I've completely lost control of (to the point of it being for sale across the world on canvases, used on album covers, used on TV screens for product shots etc, all without me earning a penny from it)

This one, if anyone is interested: http://SPAM/bmc99ws

It took me about 20 seconds to find a link to the Flickr account of who is clearly the owner of the shot (me), and also ironically to my username on Talk Photography.
Click to expand...

the 1st I could see was on page 4 of google to the TP link.....

So how can the new law help you? What is different than now if you wanted to chase the 'for gain' downloaders. (some of the links are just using the image as an example of the type of shot at night in some forums)
 
One more point about your image....what exactly was your licence on flickr with this image?
 
tiler65 said:
the 1st I could see was on page 4 of google to the TP link.....

So how can the new law help you? What is different than now if you wanted to chase the 'for gain' downloaders. (some of the links are just using the image as an example of the type of shot at night in some forums)
Click to expand...

Flickr link at the top of page 5, I would assume if anyone is being even vaguely diligent they would skip past all the wallpaper links and look for something a little more tangible.

I don't think the new law can help me, but then it doesn't seem to help me a great deal right now. I was just pointing out a fairly extreme example of image theft, and how it's fairly easy to trace the owner.

tiler65 said:
One more point about your image....what exactly was your licence on flickr with this image?
Click to expand...

All rights reserved.
 
Last edited:
ukaskew said:
Flickr link at the top of page 5, I would assume if anyone is being even vaguely diligent they would skip past all the wallpaper links and look for something a little more tangible.

I don't think the new law can help me, but then it doesn't seem to help me a great deal right now. I was just pointing out a fairly extreme example of image theft, and how it's fairly easy to trace the owner.
Click to expand...
But the license you have set with flickr may not mean they are unlawfully using your photo ..... in fact you may be giving permission for it to be used. That is why I asked.
 
tiler65 said:
the 1st I could see was on page 4 of google to the TP link.....

So how can the new law help you? What is different than now if you wanted to chase the 'for gain' downloaders. (some of the links are just using the image as an example of the type of shot at night in some forums)
Click to expand...
Hi tiler. May I turn the question around and ask what has worsened with the new law in this circumstance?
 
To highlight a flaw in the points above; I, and I assume most people, update their online portfolios. There's no guarantee that an image I had on my portfolio last month is still there. Does this mean that once we post an image we must keep it 'live' and never remove them?
Although this will allow usage, would I be right in assuming the owner would get paid/could claim if they come forward?
 
Rapscallion said:
Hi tiler. May I turn the question around and ask what has worsened with the new law in this circumstance?
Click to expand...

The Act contains changes to UK copyright law which permit the commercial exploitation of images where information identifying the owner is missing, so-called "orphan works", by placing the work into what's known as "extended collective licensing" schemes.

And I am not on my own when I believe that there will be now even more images stripped of data and watermarks to try and make them 'orphaned'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top