Well, this should be interesting...

Woodsy

Woodsy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,676
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
You can be as skeptical as you like my dear chap but that is exactly what this Government plan to do.

The same Government that introduced the Coroner's Act last year and snuck through a huge piece of legislation in there as to what you can have in a visual image before it becomes illegal and bizarrely included comic book art in it.

The same Government who introduced the Criminal Justice Act which even more bizarrely governs what two consenting adults can do to each other in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Some of it is just insane, you can go to the cinema and watch SAW movies or hire them on DVD but you could actually be arrested if you had a still image from it on your wall at home!

They have been sneaking through this kind of insidious legislation for years.
 
bar stewards. I hate to think what will happen to flickr and such places when everyone starts deleting their images and not renewing their accounts etc.

I fail to see how things like this are allowed to pass?

As absurd as it is, I am assuming this does not extend to personal websites? EDIT: Ignore that last part.
 
i'll just start waster marking though the middle of my pictures.
 
Sucks big time.

Presumably the orphan works scheme is set to generate sufficient revenue to make it lucrative for Government, can't see any other upsides.

As for the 'my face is private' I can't see it making that much difference in practical terms. Many people already think they can prevent their photo being taken in public, and there's nothing to stop the pro togs at whom this bill is aimed to declare themselves Joe Public and just get on with it.
 
Woodsy said:
bar stewards. I hate to think what will happen to flickr and such places when everyone starts deleting their images and not renewing their accounts etc.

I fail to see how things like this are allowed to pass?

As absurd as it is, I am assuming this does not extend to personal websites?
Click to expand...

You assume wrong Woodsy, look further down in that article and it cites personal websites as exactly the kind of images at risk.
 
What is this world coming to.. utter madness if they pass what that article describes.
 
As an amateur this will have zero impact on me. However, depending on the type or work, if I was making a living from photography then I think I would probably jack it in. Utterly ridiculous.
 
BouncyMelons said:
You assume wrong Woodsy, look further down in that article and it cites personal websites as exactly the kind of images at risk.
Click to expand...

Sorry Ali, yeah, I edited following a re-read of that paragraph. :)

So basically, websites are going to be reduced to 300px, highly watermarked and 50DPI images. Forgive the sweeping statement, but this place really is falling apart isn't it.
 
Most of the content on the internet will have to be reduced to utterly useless.

All the publishers have to do is strip the metadata and even watermarks can be got round easily in PS. Claim that it is an orphan and the onus is on you to a)track down your image, b)prove it's yours c) go through a lengthy claims process and hand over any proceeds to the Government for their "adminstration"

And people wonder why pro's are jacking it in left right and centre and going off to shoot weddings?

There is hardly a branch of photography that's profitable enough to pay a living wage left. Get rid of a few more of those horribly inconvenient press types, shut down the paps and off you go.

Magazines, product shots, sports and weddings, take your pick.........
 
I read it that images can only be 'claimed' if in the public interest?
 
acutally ignore that, thats for commericial use, digital watermarking and huge name across the middle for the win then
 
BouncyMelons said:
Most of the content on the internet will have to be reduced to utterly useless.

All the publishers have to do is strip the metadata and even watermarks can be got round easily in PS. Claim that it is an orphan and the onus is on you to a)track down your image, b)prove it's yours c) go through a lengthy claims process and hand over any proceeds to the Government for their "adminstration"

And people wonder why pro's are jacking it in left right and centre and going off to shoot weddings?

There is hardly a branch of photography that's profitable enough to pay a living wage left. Get rid of a few more of those horribly inconvenient press types, shut down the paps and off you go.

Magazines, product shots, sports and weddings, take your pick.........
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Whilst all this royally ticks me off, simply because of the hypocrisy of it all, it wont stop me taking photos both in the street nor of landscapes. If it takes the internet being reduced to pixelated rubbish to prevent your work being essentially stolen (albeit with a patronising "oh, sorry, here you go, here's a few quid for the use"), then so be it.

I wonder if sites such as flickr may get around it simply by removing all functionality other than simply viewing the photos, and removing the content from search engine results? After all, with the fallout of this hitting places like flickr hard (I would imagine), would it not be in their interest to protect their customers?

I have to be honest, I am glad that photography for me is just a hobby, and not a means of living. I am lucky enough, at least from this perspective, to have a totally different industry to fall back on as far as careers go. I honestly do feel sorry for anyone this has an adverse effect on.
 
Can't imagine Flickr removing search engine access, as it's part of the Yahoo empire :shrug:
 
I think that kind of highly emotive and wholesale rejection of the proposals is not actually very helpful. It's too highly charged, too wordy, and with too many long words and syllables. It would never have got past the subs desk on The Sun!

It is clear that there is a big problem with all this orphan stuff floating about the web, and that photographers' rights are already being abused wholesale, as it is. Something needs to be done, and at the very least this Bill represents an effort to address the situation to the potential benefit of photographers. Though it is all a bit disconcerting, I'll agree :eek: Just playing devil's advocate here...

To illustrate the dangers of the proposed Bill, the writer says it is like legalised TWOCing of cars - seeing a car with no number plate (or deliberately removing the number plate), paying a nominal fee and just driving away. Okay, but if the roads were actually clogged by 90% of the cars in existence (90% is the article's estimate of orphan images in existence) just sitting there, apparently without owners, doing absolutely nothing for ever and a day, then it would make sense to somehow make use of those cars for the common good, and to the owner's benefit if they could be traced. Just seems like an emotive but flawed analogy to me, that hasn't been thought through.

The article doesn't say how the Fair Dealing clause in existing legislation could be adapted to cover what the new Bill sets out to do. That would be more helpful, and give us some kind of comparitive measure.

As an aside, on the question of copyright, how many of the people on here have got permission to use the images in their avatars? Or are they orphan images, with untraceable owners? Hmm... That's a rhetorical question BTW :D
 
I have because my other half knows the artist. :p

Sorry but I fail to see how any of what I have read could possibly be of benefit to photographers.
 
Where they can't prove who the copyright holder is.... or if they are being naughty, remove the watermark and/or exif and cliam they can't trace the owner.

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/uk-gov-nationalises-orphans-and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public said:
In fact what an "orphan work" is remains undefined in the Bill.
Click to expand...
 
I've got a question, and apologies if it mentions it later in the article because I'm only half way through reading it.


What pictures does this encompass? If we are talking about the internet then what makes the UK law apply?

If you're a UK tog and post on a US website does that count?
If you're a US tog and post on a UK website does that count?
If you took the pic in the UK?
 
As another example of how the bill will do nothing for the photography industry or the users of photography......

The majority of my clients are charities. Often when I undertake a shoot I am photographing vulnerable people (by the very nature of the work that the charity does). Understandably the charities ask the individual being photographed to sign a permission form. The form is not a legal requirement (as yet) but it gives the charity piece of mind that no one is going to say they didn't have permission to use the image or take the image in the first place. It also gives the individual or their guardian piece of mind because they know what the image will or will not be used for. It forms a contract.

In good faith, the charity puts the image on their website to promote the work they do. Then another individual comes along and takes the image from the website and puts it on their own, just as they are allowed to do under the amendments to the 1988 Copyright legislation under the D.E. Bill, as a non-commercial use. The 'new user' of the image uses it in a completely different context and one outside of the uses stated on the permission form that the subject of the photograph signed. (Lets say in the context of eating disorders as a hypothetical example). The individual in the photograph sees their image being used in a way that they feel they didn't agree to and takes legal action against the original charity and it hits the papers.

The first charity (my client) is discredited although they did nothing wrong, and whether the case is upheld or not. Mud sticks so to speak. The individual in the photograph (who was already facing many challenges in life which is why they were involved with the charity in the first place) no longer trusts support organisations and is now even more reluctant to seek help in the future. Other similar people hear about the case and are also less likely to seek help just in case it happens to them. And of course other charities hear about the case an now know that a permission form will not protect them from the consequences of similar situations. It may even make things worse,. They now only use 'safe' stock images which don't get the specific messages across to their audiences in the way that the commissioned images they used to get from their photographer did. Meanwhile, my phone doesn't ring any more because all my clients are scared to have photographs of their projects taken, knowing that if they put them on their website (which is where most people find out about them) they can't control their use by other people.

Its something which several charities and not-for-profit orgs have talked to me about already and something that no one wants. Unfortunately, ill-informed Whitehall policy advisers think they are helping. Even worse, the Lords have not listened to the misgivings of the charity / Third Sector. It remains to be seen if the Commons will listen but I doubt it.

Its not just photographers who are being damaged by this Bill. Charities have to have an Internet presence to publicise their work, influence funders and (ironically) policy advisers. All of a sudden the Internet is an even bigger issue for them than it used to be if they want to use images that relate to their project delivery, as they did in the past.
 
Amateurs have been causing photography to be devalued for years by giving it away. This is where it leads. Sad.
 
Woblee said:
Where they can't prove who the copyright holder is.... or if they are being naughty, remove the watermark and/or exif and cliam they can't trace the owner.
Click to expand...

Ok well am I being really naive or is there a very simple solution to all this.

Why not make it that any image used by a publisherhas to be proven by the publisher where they actually sorced it from. If they themselves own the images then they will have the raw source files. If they have taken orphans or what they claim to be orphans then they have to track the source they got it from.

Each commercial publisher can then be audited at any time, just like the tax man and whereby they have to prove where they got their content from. Any errors or mistakes and they face a big fine. Gets the government their money through fines and means that togs don't have to go searching to make sure no body is using their images
 
very simple solution Joe but not one that suits the publishers, (especially one Mr Maxwell) who want as much content for free without having the tiresome bother of trying to establish ownership. Much easier to abolish the ownership completely and allow them to grab as much as they like.
 
Thanks for that Woodsy, the article is an intelligent and well argued case.

And 'Nomorem6', that's an excellent example of how damaging this Bill has the potential to be.
 
awp said:
Amateurs have been causing photography to be devalued for years by giving it away. This is where it leads. Sad.
Click to expand...

Weren't you an amateur once, Andrew?

Amateurs don't devalue photography... Amateurs ADD value to it by making the rest of us who make some money from it, raise our game to higher standards.

Regards,
Si
 
Of course I was - once - but I don't ever remember giving work away to publishers. With today's equipment amateurs can produce some really fine work - they just don't seem to value it. At least some of them don't. Anyway I'm off to take some shots - for money! :)
 
Spiritflier said:
Weren't you an amateur once, Andrew?

Amateurs don't devalue photography... Amateurs ADD value to it by making the rest of us who make some money from it, raise our game to higher standards.

Regards,
Si
Click to expand...

I agree, surely if you aren't doing anything better than an amateur then you shouldn't be making a living out of it.

I have heard this argument in relation to all sorts of fields - ultimately if the quality/service is there people will pay for it.
 
Of course - I go out almost every day - to a huge range of subjects / circumstances and am expected to come up with the shots no matter what - and I do. But stock sales for one have been hit and/or are paid a lot less than they were a few years ago - also I get continual phone calls from mags looking for pics that I have in my library - but they 'don't have a budget'. they don't get my pictures but they just go to Flckr and find some for free - and they tell me that! Amateurs do make a difference - and not a good one.

Off now on a shoot - while there is still someone out there who will pay me to do it! :)
 
From UK Parliament website:-

Summary of the Bill

The Bill implements aspects of Government policy on digital media set out in the ‘Digital Britain’ White Paper published in June 2009.

Key areas

* extends the role of Ofcom to include reporting on communications infrastructure and media content
* imposes obligations on internet service providers to reduce online copyright infringement, and allows the Secretary of State to amend copyright legislation to the same end
* allows the Secretary of State to intervene in internet domain name registration
* requires Channel Four to provide public service content on a range of media
* provides more flexibility over the licensing of Channel 3 and Channel 5 services and allows Ofcom to appoint providers of regional and local news
* modifies the licensing regime to facilitate switchover to digital radio
* allows variation of the public service provision in Channel 3 and 5 licences
* provides Ofcom with additional powers in relation to electromagnetic spectrum access
* extends the range of video games that are subject to age-related classification
* makes provision for the regulation of copyright licensing
* includes non-print formats in the public lending right payment scheme
 
jontucker said:
As an amateur this will have zero impact on me. However, depending on the type or work, if I was making a living from photography then I think I would probably jack it in. Utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No you're wrong there.

It would be even easier for a publisher to pinch your images and use them for profit. Their profit.

Would you ever know it had been done?

And if you did know, would you be happy?
 
The problem with this Bill, as outlined in the linked article in the OP, is that it does not itself define what an 'orphaned work' is, but instead is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State.

There are, in my opinion, some circumstances where the proposal in the Bill might be reasonable.

Playing devil's advocate: picture yourself at a car boot sale, leafing through some old glass plates taken at the end of the nineteenth century and you happen across an photograph of your town. You pay a couple of quid for it and take it home.

You have purchased the photograph. You own the negative. However, you do not own the copyright. You have no idea who the original photographer was, when he died or how to get in touch with his heirs to obtain permission to make copies of the image.

He might have been killed by a bomb dropped by a Zeppelin in WW1, but he might have gone on to celebrate his 100th birthday and died only in 1980. Copyright terms in the UK now extend to life of the author plus 70 years and it is quite conceivable that the photograph will not enter the public domain until 2050.

In a strict interpretation of the law, you cannot even make a print the photograph at home. Certainly, you cannot scan it and share it with others who have an interest in the history of your town on a web site.

There's a thread on this forum today relating to exactly this kind of situation

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=202910

Without a clear definition of what constitutes an orphaned work, then it is difficult to form an opinion of the merits of the Bill.
 
Woblee said:
I've got a question, and apologies if it mentions it later in the article because I'm only half way through reading it.


What pictures does this encompass? If we are talking about the internet then what makes the UK law apply?

If you're a UK tog and post on a US website does that count?
If you're a US tog and post on a UK website does that count?
If you took the pic in the UK?
Click to expand...

I think that's a very good point.

However, if stuff is already being ripped off anyway by unscrupulous publishers, nothing and no laws will make any difference to that.


BouncyMelons said:
I have because my other half knows the artist. :p

Sorry but I fail to see how any of what I have read could possibly be of benefit to photographers.
Click to expand...

It is at least an attempt to bring some kind of formal discipline, to the potential benefit of photographers, into an area where currently there is wholesale looting anyway.

I'm not sure photographers will be worse off by this, though being realistic I'm also having trouble seeing how they may be much better off either.

I would like to think this deliberate orphaning of images won't be such a problem. Firstly, it will clearly be illegal to do that and I hope that the courts will take a very dim view of it. Secondly, it cannot be beyond the wit of man to easily mark an image with an indelible traceable identity.

nomorem6 said:
As another example of how the bill will do nothing for the photography industry or the users of photography......

The majority of my clients are charities. Often when I undertake a shoot I am photographing vulnerable people (by the very nature of the work that the charity does). Understandably the charities ask the individual being photographed to sign a permission form. The form is not a legal requirement (as yet) but it gives the charity piece of mind that no one is going to say they didn't have permission to use the image or take the image in the first place. It also gives the individual or their guardian piece of mind because they know what the image will or will not be used for. It forms a contract.

In good faith, the charity puts the image on their website to promote the work they do. Then another individual comes along and takes the image from the website and puts it on their own, just as they are allowed to do under the amendments to the 1988 Copyright legislation under the D.E. Bill, as a non-commercial use. The 'new user' of the image uses it in a completely different context and one outside of the uses stated on the permission form that the subject of the photograph signed. (Lets say in the context of eating disorders as a hypothetical example). The individual in the photograph sees their image being used in a way that they feel they didn't agree to and takes legal action against the original charity and it hits the papers.

The first charity (my client) is discredited although they did nothing wrong, and whether the case is upheld or not. Mud sticks so to speak. The individual in the photograph (who was already facing many challenges in life which is why they were involved with the charity in the first place) no longer trusts support organisations and is now even more reluctant to seek help in the future. Other similar people hear about the case and are also less likely to seek help just in case it happens to them. And of course other charities hear about the case an now know that a permission form will not protect them from the consequences of similar situations. It may even make things worse,. They now only use 'safe' stock images which don't get the specific messages across to their audiences in the way that the commissioned images they used to get from their photographer did. Meanwhile, my phone doesn't ring any more because all my clients are scared to have photographs of their projects taken, knowing that if they put them on their website (which is where most people find out about them) they can't control their use by other people.

Its something which several charities and not-for-profit orgs have talked to me about already and something that no one wants. Unfortunately, ill-informed Whitehall policy advisers think they are helping. Even worse, the Lords have not listened to the misgivings of the charity / Third Sector. It remains to be seen if the Commons will listen but I doubt it.

Its not just photographers who are being damaged by this Bill. Charities have to have an Internet presence to publicise their work, influence funders and (ironically) policy advisers. All of a sudden the Internet is an even bigger issue for them than it used to be if they want to use images that relate to their project delivery, as they did in the past.
Click to expand...

That the problem with the internet and digital technology. It's an open doorway that anyone can walk through, take pretty much what they want, walk out again and do pretty much what they like with it. Those are the rules of the game, if you choose to play.

I can see one thing possibly happening as a result of this - the growth of subscription websites and other paid-for services that offer some form of security and policing of images.
 
Musicman said:
Without a clear definition of what constitutes an orphaned work, then it is difficult to form an opinion of the merits of the Bill.
Click to expand...

I think you make a fair point with your analogy Rob but the lack of any definition on what constitutes and orphaned image gives me a very clear opinion on the merits of the bill ;)

Richard, you say that stripping of an image is clearly illegal and you hope the courts would take a very dim view, but that's where my concern really lies. There will be no court redress for the photographer who has his/her work stolen, just the Home Secretary and their "after they deduct their administration costs" Somehow I cannot see photographers benfiting from a system that allocates even more of their money to the government?

Yes there is already wholesale pillaging, address that rather than give up. Fine the publishers caught doing it and fund a unit to track down copyright infringement with the proceeds. Any photographer who belives that they have been stolen from can complain to them and have their claim investigated. And award goes 50/50 to the photographer and the unit. Spot checks on publishers to make sure they can produce the copyright to the images they are using?

It's the unscrupulous publishers who should be put on the back foot here, not the photographers producing the goods.
 
I was going to post this in a new thread, but I'll add it to this one instead.

For those who are interested in copyright, click on the following link

copyrightaction.com/digital-economy-bill-mp-letter-template

It explains in simple terms what the digital economy bill will mean for photographers.

It helped me to understand what the problem was, but it's actually the template of a letter we should all be sending to our mp's if we care about the possibility of EVER making any money from stock images.

If you've never heard of "orphan works", you should be reading this!

And writing that letter. MP's do listen to what their consituents say, especially on an apparently obscure issue like this that they might not have thought about before.
 
Same thing discussed here:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=202968

And then the extra bit is this:

Woblee said:
If we are talking about the internet then what makes the UK law apply?

If you're a UK tog and post on a US website does that count?
If you're a US tog and post on a UK website does that count?
If you took the pic in the UK?
Click to expand...

The internet does indeed throw in an interesting spanner in this. The UK introducing this type of thing unilaterally has difficult consequences, this is pretty similar to a country, say China, not respecting copyright and pirating films, software etc with no attempt at law enforcement.

I think they've not thought about that, particularly the "Land of the Lawyer" across the pond, I think their lawyers might see this as the most almighty cash cow in history...

Either that or the US will rule us an "outlaw state" and start trade embargoes - if the EU don't do it before them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top