Well, this should be interesting...

[joescrivens]

Come on Joe, that is at most a minor inconvenience. Put it on a scale of 1 to 10 against someone who has lost their livelihood. Anyway, what makes you think people aren't using your photos now?

It wasn't that long ago that there wasn't an internet to post your pictures on at all and it's ever evolving - you have to roll with the punches and adapt. Unfortunately that means for some people that they have to find some other means of earning a living. Which is sad.

Since when did this argument become:

Amateur photographs lose more or less than togs?

I'm not debating that, it's obvious. But you are categorically saying that only togs lose out, and on this you are wrong (you're just too stubborn to admit it)

It matters not on a scale of 1 to 10 how they are affected compared to pro togs, thats not the debate. We're debating how all people are affected and you are claiming the amateur tog has no problems with this. Well I've just shown you a very real problem, all are affected in different ways.

You call it a minor inconvenience, but being able to post on here has improved my skills vastly, see this thread:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=187563

Not being able to post on here because I don't want my photos used would mean I wouldn't have improved how I did, and that would have been more than an inconvienience

 

[stokecity_m]

Post number 79 sums it up completely for me.

True i may not lose any money but i still lose out.

 

[jontucker]

Since when did this argument become:

Amateur photographs lose more or less than togs?

I'm not debating that, it's obvious. But you are categorically saying that only togs lose out, and on this you are wrong (you're just too stubborn to admit it)

It matters not on a scale of 1 to 10 how they are affected compared to pro togs, thats not the debate. We're debating how all people are affected and you are claiming the amateur tog has no problems with this. Well I've just shown you a very real problem, all are affected in different ways.

You call it a minor inconvenience, but being able to post on here has improved my skills vastly, see this thread:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=187563

Not being able to post on here because I don't want my photos used would mean I wouldn't have improved how I did, and that would have been more than an inconvienience

Ok, you will have to change the way you interact with the internet which I suppose is an 'affect' (not one that I would consider has an actual, meaningful impact on you mind).

Can you explain to me, say in the context of your earlier Boots example, how an amateur photographer would see any significant difference after the bill is passed as opposed to how it would work now? This isn't loaded I just want to think both scenarios through.

 

[joescrivens]

Ok, you will have to change the way you interact with the internet which I suppose is an 'affect' (not one that I would consider has an actual, meaningful impact on you mind).

How else can I post high res unwatermarked images without them being taken then? It's not just an adjustment. I can't share my image in it's proper form at all if I don't want them taken.

Can you explain to me, say in the context of your earlier Boots example, how an amateur photographer would see any significant difference after the bill is passed as opposed to how it would work now? This isn't loaded I just want to think both scenarios through.

Well now if I can prove that the image is mine I can sue Boots for breach of copyright. I have the original raw file and all they have is a jpeg.

Once the bill has passed, all I get is a small handout from the government

 

[jontucker]

How else can I post high res unwatermarked images without them being taken then? It's not just an adjustment. I can't share my image in it's proper form at all if I don't want them taken.

Technology is always evolving, there will undoubtedly be some way of preventing it and it'll probably be sooner rather than later. So you will more than likely have a choice but still the pro togger won't.

Well now if I can prove that the image is mine I can sue Boots for breach of copyright. I have the original raw file and all they have is a jpeg.

Once the bill has passed, all I get is a small handout from the government

This sounds like quite a hobby you have!

 

[HoppyUK]

It is a matter of principle, and one of the principles at stake is that images should have some monetary value. The more images that are used for no payment, the less any individual image is worth.

From what you are saying, Hoppy, you would, for example, rather a publisher got a free image to use on a book cover, because you will be able to buy that book marginally cheaper. Am I right?

I'm genuinely trying to understand where you're coming from.

That's one of the fundamental truths here. The value that used to apply to images no longer holds. Photographers might assign a certain value to a picture, but if nobody is prepared to pay, it's an illusion.

Yes, I would rather a publisher got a free image to use rather than none, because it makes the product cheaper and keeps the publication viable - people in business, folks in work. The alternative is to be uncompetitive and die, because somebody else will do it if they can and money always has the last word. It's consumers like you and me that won't pay, not the publishers. Why should photographers be immune to the harsh realities of a radically changed media landscape?

And it's not as if publishers are making massive profits because of this. My old magazine company is a shadow of its former self - we used to be an FT100 business. That company, Emap plc, is now broken up and my old division owned by the German publisher Bauer Media. I'm afraid they bought a pup, a business shattered by 'unfair' internet competition which has slashed circulations and stolen millions in advertising revenue. Last year, for the first time there was more money spent in the UK on internet advertising than there was on TV. The building where I worked has lost 25% of the workforce, more than 100 people redundant over about three years (it started long before the recession).

Meanwhile, we are sitting here debating this on a free website. You can't have it both ways.

 

[ThomasB]

Don't you just love Britain... last one on the boat put the lights out.

 

[DrRusty]

I guess we all (those who are appalled by the potential of this bill), should sign this or someone (more elequent than myself create a suitable petition).

If the numbers jump significantly then the it might be picked up and pressure will duly be exerted on the "government" to change this. lol but it is worth make this more public otherwise it will pass into law way too easily.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/copyrightreform/

I still don't see how this will work without it being an international law, it's all well and good telling an American that he is due a couple of quid from some quango controlled fund for the use of his photograph by someone in the UK, but I'm betting the US courts will see it differently and no doubt they would look to issue arrest warranties and extraditions should the offender stray from the UK.

Just imagine plucky Brit extradited to the US and in court his defence is "I didn't know who's image it was so I used it anyway as it was an orphan as allowed by UK law"

I think the US court might say WE DON'T give a ***t pay $$$$$ and rot in jail for a few years .

 

[Woblee]

Signatures: 4,138

 

[Woodsy]

Signed just now. Let's hope something becomes of all this.

 

[Amp34]

Another nail in the coffin IMO...

One day I'll fly away....

Get out if you can folks

Gary.

Yet how is that going to help?

I don't quite understand how this will actually work as the internet is global. Does this mean that UK companies can choose any image without a bit of string attached (in which case there will be a lot of angry photographers from europe, US and the rest of the world) or does it mean only UK photographers work can be used under the scheme, in which case the publisher obviously knows at least partially where the image has come from in the first place and it's not an orphan...

 

[Amp34]

I share your concerns Ali. What seems to be missing here is a practical alternative. Copyright theft is already happening on a massive scale and unless the internet is shut down, that will continue to happen. It is already illegal, and clearly that makes sod all difference.

It happens all the time, all over - please stand up that person who has never watched a pirate DVD, listened to a bootleg CD then copied it for a friend, photocopied a document that they should not have done (either knowingly or not), or enjoyed seeing an image in a magazine that has been illegally lifted? That person doesn't exist. It's like breaking the speed limit - it might be illegal but we all do it, everyday.

I'll put my hand up to that, however the difference is in the usual place, commercial use. I have downloaded and watched a few videos/songs but I wouldn't dream of selling them on...

Same goes with photos. I watermark my images with my webpage and have seen a couple of sites hosting my images, however i'm fine with that as they are being used non commercially, as soon as I see one in a magazine or company website they had better get their cheque book out.

Yes maybe they didn't know where the owner was for the image, that doesn't mean it's right for them to steal it. There are plenty of copyright free images floating around that are easy to find, or god forbid, the company could actually PAY someone to take one for them...

 

[Laudrup]

Amateurs just don't want to know about this dull legal stuff or spend hours embedding IPTC, even if they know what it is. They want to concentrate on the enjoyable bits of shooting and sharing their work, often via free services and untraceable nicknames. If work gets published without payment, they tend to feel flattered rather than robbed anyway. If they can claim a few quid from a collecting society they'll be chuffed.

Speaking for potentially millions of people there in such a sweeping statement. As ever I'll believe it all when I see it.

 

[Amp34]

What have Mr & Mrs Smith lost exactly? Nothing. Would the shop owner have paid them if he had realised it was their photo? No, he would have used a different one for free.

Seriously, as an amateur (I know I keep saying that but it's important) I have more important things to worry about than people using a photo that I posted on the internet.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I do think this is a problem, just not for amateur toggers.

The thing is you know that people can use your image for free on anything (when this new law comes in) yet the vast majority don't. I'm betting a large proportion of these people would be peeved if their large resolution image they uploaded for their friends was then copied onto a billboard selling condoms for example...

Actually I love the idea of this new law, going to make me a fortune. I'll just google some nice things ("beach", "sunset", "mountains") and strip any high res image that looks nice and doesn't have any definitive info about the owner, get them printed off and sell them for £30 each down the local jumble sale. Maybe even get some random "glamour" photos, loads of them and get them printed, who cares if it's someones girlfriend/wife/daughter and sell them for loads too.... Perfectly legal...

On the latter note how about this: You go on holiday and take loads of shots, uploading them to flickr when you get back, completely forget there is a topless (or "worse") shot in the mix. Before you delete it someone has copied it and posted it on another website. Someone from a top shelf magazine (or even The Sun) sees it and goes "nice, free content" and publishes it in their magazine/newspaper for tens of thousands/millions to see, including your next door neighbours, friends, family... and all perfectly legal...

*money smilie"

 

[King_Boru]

Actually I love the idea of this new law, going to make me a fortune. I'll just google some nice things ("beach", "sunset", "mountains") and strip any high res image that looks nice and doesn't have any definitive info about the owner, get them printed off and sell them for £30 each down the local jumble sale. Maybe even get some random "glamour" photos, loads of them and get them printed, who cares if it's someones girlfriend/wife/daughter and sell them for loads too.... Perfectly legal...

I don't think this would be possible. The bill is set up for large media corporations. Wouldn't you need to register and become licensed as a media outlet to do this? As it stands, I think your assumption would be considered theft (which I think is your point in some weird way).

On the latter note how about this: You go on holiday and take loads of shots, uploading them to flickr when you get back, completely forget there is a topless (or "worse") shot in the mix. Before you delete it someone has copied it and posted it on another website. Someone from a top shelf magazine (or even The Sun) sees it and goes "nice, free content" and publishes it in their magazine/newspaper for tens of thousands/millions to see, including your next door neighbours, friends, family... and all perfectly legal...

*money smilie"

Unlikely without a release.

 

[Amp34]

I don't think this would be possible. The bill is set up for large media corporations. Wouldn't you need to register and become licensed as a media outlet to do this? As it stands, I think your assumption would be considered theft (which I think is your point in some weird way).

Ah, I didn't realise it was only for big business. Sounds about normal...:bang:

And yeah id hope it is theft, however the change in copyright is essentially theft to me, there is no difference between what I described "dodgey dave" did and what the large companies are going to be able to do IMO.

Unlikely without a release.

Possibly, however there is no legal requirement for one I think so if it's obvious they are over 18 then there would be no need for one.

 

[Lazlo Woodbine]

Signed and posted elsewhere to hopefully drum up more support.

 

[AliB]

Speaking for potentially millions of people there in such a sweeping statement. As ever I'll believe it all when I see it.

By which time it's too late

 

[jerry12953]

Signed just now. Let's hope something becomes of all this.

Woodsy and others,

If you're worried about this, and, to be honest, we all should be, there is more you can do.

If you click on the link below you will reach a letter which you can adapt, print off, sign and send to your MP.

An individual letter to an MP would be a lot more effective than a name on a petition.

Personally it helped me to understand what all the fuss was about as well.

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

 

[Naboo32]

...

...

The equivalent would be a theft tax that we all pay 1p per shopping transaction into and that the stores who fall victim to shoplifting could claim 50p per item they discovered you walking out with, but you could still keep the item.

Nothing to do with photography, but as a former retail manager with a large retail chain, I can tell you that this is (in effect) exactly what happens now, with regard to shoplifting from major retailers. The law (in the UK) is utterly ineffective when it comes to prosecuting shoplifters and the amount of expense, manpower and (sadly) the personal security risks to staff make it a side of life that the employers would prefer to turn a blind eye to.

Very often I was advised by my employers to not tackle certain individuals who were blatently stealing from us on a regular basis and if I did so, it was "at my own risk" . Sometimes, we'd get lucky and intimidate them into putting (some of the) stuff back before they legged it out of the shop - this is the 50p tax that you refer to , as they'd often only put back part of their haul, to make us think that they had nothing else on them :bang:.

I can even remember being told by one of my senior managers that loss by theft represented something like a 1% percent loss of operating profit per annum. As far as they were concerned, they could still make the profits that they wanted by investing less in security and just passing on whatever costs they did incur on loss/security to the customers who actually bothered to pay for the stuff that they took out the door with them :|.

Pretty much every time you make an honest transaction anywhere, you're just the 'middle man', subsidising the thieves and the profiteers at the same time.

I got so angry with just that one aspect of my job, that I quit retail management and stopped working in the public service sector altogether - what a great move that was .

I've watched (a minority of) a whole generation growing up in Britain who simply think that the law of the land and any social conventions concerning other people's rights, just don't apply to them. When I knew them, they were 15 year old shoplifters. By now, they're probably the people who stole your car, broke into your house, mugged your son, sexually assaulted your daughter in a night club ... etc. etc. .

Who do I blame? Myself, our successive politically correct governments and everyone else like me who has never stood up and publicly said, "I've had enough of this. I want something done about it"!

I think you get the picture ...

 

[King_Boru]

Possibly, however there is no legal requirement for one I think so if it's obvious they are over 18 then there would be no need for one.

You'll need a release for recognizable individuals (except crowds, sort of, and press imagery, but we push the boundaries sometimes) . This act doesn't give a media outlet the right to publish nude / sexual imagery without the models / subjects permission. This would be illegal and subject the outlet to criminal charges (as far as I understand it).

The day an act comes in to play where no subject releases are required is the day everyone loses their rights as an individual. Lets just hope such a day isn't on the agenda.

 

[Amp34]

Are you sure? I was pretty certain that model releases weren't legally required in this country, American on the other hand you do, which is why most stock sites say you need a model release.

 

[AliB]

The day an act comes in to play where no subject releases are required is the day everyone loses their rights as an individual. Lets just hope such a day isn't on the agenda.

You don't have any rights in law in this country. The US has it's constitution which establishes the right of the individual. We don't actually have any rights in this country, our law being based on what you can't do. It's prescriptive.

 

[OptimusBri]

After I have finished my Art Foundation course at Uni, I am going on to do a Photography and Video course next year. Photography is something I definitely want to do as a career, and that's not going to change, but this new law really worries me

I currently post a lot of my work on Flickr, and I don't resize the image beforehand, which means it is possible for people to access the image at it's original size. I also post links under my image so people are able to view it large and on black, as I feel that it looks better with more detail and you can see it more clearly. I don't put watermarks on any of my images as up until now I didn't feel that I needed to, as I am not a professional photographer, and I don't feel that my images are of a good enough quality for people to want to steal them as such. I think it kind of ruins an image when you have to slap a great big watermark across it as well...or a small one for that matter.

Do you think I should start putting watermarks on my images? Just a small one, at the bottom. I know this won't do that much in stopping people using my images but at least it's something. When posting my images do you think I should only show them at a fairly small size? (About the size of the images I post on here, which is 500x333 I think)

Thanks...

 

[jontucker]

Do you think I should start putting watermarks on my images? Just a small one, at the bottom. I know this won't do that much in stopping people using my images but at least it's something. When posting my images do you think I should only show them at a fairly small size? (About the size of the images I post on here, which is 500x333 I think)

Thanks...

If you already know it won't do anything then there is no point in doing it.

Regardless of the bill, if you don't want your images used without you knowing then either put a watermark across the middle of it, or don't upload them at all. If you think you might want to make money out of those images someday then do the same.

EDIT: Incidentally, I found two of my photos being used on a commercial webpage at the weekend, without my permission. As I have already said in this thread loads of times - I don't care - I'm just making the point that it already happens with or without this bill. Sadly, them using my images for nothing has perhaps deprived a pro photographer of a job he might otherwise have had.

 

[HoppyUK]

Briony, this new law won't change the internet, or human nature, or the supply and demand drivers of business - right now there is absolutely massive over-supply. If you accept the benefits of being able to show your work universally for free, then you must accept the potential risks. No laws are going to change that, but of course you can take precautions.

TBH if you want to make a living out of photography these days, then you're never going to do it shooting stock. Nobody is. Even those people with thousands of great images that used to make a decent living out of it have seen that income reduced to pocket money.

The only way to make a living today is to get commissioned to actually shoot stuff commercially in the first place.

 

[jerry12953]

If you already know it won't do anything then there is no point in doing it.

Regardless of the bill, if you don't want your images used without you knowing then either put a watermark across the middle of it, or don't upload them at all. If you think you might want to make money out of those images someday then do the same.

EDIT: Incidentally, I found two of my photos being used on a commercial webpage at the weekend, without my permission. As I have already said in this thread loads of times - I don't care - I'm just making the point that it already happens with or without this bill. Sadly, them using my images for nothing has perhaps deprived a pro photographer of a job he might otherwise have had.

If only you could see the bigger picture, jon.....

 

[jontucker]

If only you could see the bigger picture, jon.....

I'm happy to be enlightened, Jerry - Nobody has put forward an argument other than 'it's inconvenient'!

 

[purpleclouds]

Anyone up for a little humiliation of the Government when this law is passed? Find some 'orphan' images of our dear MPs who voted for it, and all pitch in for a billboard campaign? We'd need a catchy slogan...

 

[jerry12953]

I'm happy to be enlightened, Jerry - Nobody has put forward an argument other than 'it's inconvenient'!

The bigger picture is that although you may not care what happens to your images and who might profit from them, other people are trying to make a living trying to sell pictures and you are putting them out of business.

As has been stated here many times!

 

[jontucker]

The bigger picture is that although you may not care what happens to your images and who might profit from them, other people are trying to make a living trying to sell pictures and you are putting them out of business.

As has been stated here many times!

Yes, Jerry, stated by ME!

Point is, that's never going to change. It is already the case and this bill has nothing to do with that.

I also think people are taking this to mean that your photos WILL be used by other people without you knowing which is simply not the case. It just means you will have to change the way you operate, which for an amateur is no more than a minor inconvenience. Pro's on the other hand lose revenue because there are plenty of amateurs uploading their work to the internet who won't change their habits. I've said that all along.

 

[joescrivens]

Yes, Jerry, by ME!

yet you still don't seem to care

 

[HoppyUK]

If only you could see the bigger picture, jon.....

I'm happy to be enlightened, Jerry - Nobody has put forward an argument other than 'it's inconvenient'!

I don't see the point of trying to convince one side or the other that this is a universally 'good thing' or a bad one. The two opposing sides will never agree, because both stand to lose or gain and there's no getting away from that - it's black and white.

Publishers stand to gain, which is why they are driving it (of course they are - who else would?). As they see it, they can give good use to a mass of great images currently doing nothing.

The flipside is that there will undoubedly be some that will lose out as a result - let's call them professionals for want of a better term. The government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that on balance there is more to gain than lose, but it's impossible to claim that nobody will be adversly affected.

And in the middle stand the vast majority, who either don't know or don't care what happens, and some might even get a pleasant surprise as a result of the new changes.

 

[jontucker]

yet you still don't seem to care

Care about amateurs - No. About people (pros) losing revenue (if indeed that turns out to be the case ) - very much so.

 

[joescrivens]

Care about amateurs - No. About people (pros) losing revenue (if indeed that turns out to be the case ) - very much so.

hopefully in time you'll see the light Jon

by the way, mind if I get a copy of your car key and use your car when you aren't using it? I'll replace all the petrol so it won't have any effect on you. You'll never know. Is that cool?

 

[AliB]

The only way to make a living today is to get commissioned to actually shoot stuff commercially in the first place.

Which becomes even less likely when you can just round up a few orphans or create them when you feel like it because the penalites even if you do get caught will not deter the publishers. They are still going to get their content even cheaper. Less money in the pot simply means less photographers able to make a living.

 

[jontucker]

hopefully in time you'll see the light Jon

by the way, mind if I get a copy of your car key and use your car when you aren't using it? I'll replace all the petrol so it won't have any effect on you. You'll never know. Is that cool?

I'm getting kinda bored of repeating my self here but let me try one more time.

I don't care if anyone uses the photo's I upload without me knowing. It's the process of taking them that has value to me not the photo itself. Of course I realise the photo has a monetary value, but not to an amateur that took it (if it had monetary value to that person, that makes them a semi-pro at least). It does have monetary value to the pro that can't sell his image because the amateur one is free.

If an amateur does have a problem with his images being used as a matter of principle, then the amateur has the ability to stop that from happening via watermaring, uploading low-res, or not uploading them at all. Granted that is inconvenient but so was having to lock your front door when you went out because people started nicking your stuff. Get over it. YOUR PHOTO MIGHT BE USED UNLESS YOU CHOOSE THAT YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE.

For the pro there is potentially a bigger problem. There will be hundreds of thousands of amateurs (and possibly a few pros) that either don't know or don't care that their images are being used commercially without them knowing (as there are now) and that will mean that they cannot sell their images and thus will lose revenue. YOU CAN'T SELL YOUR PHOTO BECAUSE CHEAPER/FREE ONES ARE READILY AVAILABLE.

Now Joe, can you see the difference between me sitting next to someone with lung cancer in a doctors surgery, complaining that I've stubbed my toe?

 

[joescrivens]

I'm getting kinda bored of repeating my self here but let me try one more time.

I don't care if anyone uses the photo's I upload without me knowing. It's the process of taking them that has value to me not the photo itself. Of course I realise the photo has a monetary value, but not to an amateur that took it (if it had monetary value to that person, that makes them a semi-pro at least). It does have monetary value to the pro that can't sell his image because the amateur one is free.

If an amateur does have a problem with his images being used as a matter of principle, then the amateur has the ability to stop that from happening via watermaring, uploading low-res, or not uploading them at all. Granted that is inconvenient but so was having to lock your front door when you went out because people started nicking your stuff. Get over it. YOUR PHOTO MIGHT BE USED UNLESS YOU CHOOSE THAT YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE.

For the pro there is potentially a bigger problem. There will be hundreds of thousands of amateurs (and possibly a few pros) that either don't know or don't care that their images are being used commercially without them knowing (as there are now) and that will mean that they cannot sell their images and thus will lose revenue. YOU CAN'T SELL YOUR PHOTO BECAUSE CHEAPER/FREE ONES ARE READILY AVAILABLE.

Now Joe, can you see the difference between me sitting next to someone with lung cancer in a doctors surgery, complaining that I've stubbed my toe?

yes I can see the difference there.

Nobody is claiming an amateur is going to care as much as or more than a pro. You keep repeating that part without anyone contesting it, I'm not sure why you keep repeating that. But the person who stubbed their toe, they still need some treatment.

You aren't bothered that someone is taking something of yours and benefitting from it, so I want to know if the same is true of other areas of your life. Would you care if I used your car whenever I wanted as long as it didn't affect you using it?

 

[AliB]

I don't care if anyone uses the photo's I upload without me knowing. It's the process of taking them that has value to me not the photo itself. It does have monetary value to the pro that can't sell his image because the amateur one is free.

I think I get your point only too well Jon, the fact is that this bill will free up orphan images and add to that people like you who just don't care that the free content they supply is putting peoples jobs at risk and you should be able to see why people might just take issue with you.

Ask yourself this question. If I were to go to your employer and tell them I love doing your job so much, it's my passion, and they no longer need to employ you, in fact I'll pay them £1500 for the privilege and you found yourself no longer able to work..........how would you feel about it then?

 

[jontucker]

yes I can see the difference there.

Nobody is claiming an amateur is going to care as much as or more than a pro. You keep repeating that part without anyone contesting it, I'm not sure why you keep repeating that. But the person who stubbed their toe, they still need some treatment.

You aren't bothered that someone is taking something of yours and benefitting from it, so I want to know if the same is true of other areas of your life. Would you care if I used your car whenever I wanted as long as it didn't affect you using it?

I think I get your point only too well Jon, the fact is that this bill will free up orphan images and add to that people like you who just don't care that the free content they supply is putting peoples jobs at risk and you should be able to see why people might just take issue with you.

Ask yourself this question. If I were to go to your employer and tell them I love doing your job so much, it's my passion, and they no longer need to employ you, in fact I'll pay them £1500 for the privilege and you found yourself no longer able to work..........how would you feel about it then?

TFFT - you've finally understood me. I've been using myself as an example but the fact is, I am one of the hundreds of thousands of amateur toggers that either don't know or don't care. How are you going to convince them all to stop uploading their photos in such a way that they can't be easily orphaned?

It's been said several times in this thread that it's happening already and this bill will make it even easier for people to do it but that still has practically no impact on the 'amateur' group of toggers. Sure some might care (and maybe enough to change the way they work) but most won't.

The upshot is that professional photographers could be impacted and amateur photographers, largely, won't be. If you read my very first post in this thread, that is exactly what I said! edit: actually I didn't say those exact words but it was implied.

I would be rather upset if you stole my job. On the other hand, if you closed the cycle path that I ride my bike on, I would just ride somewhere else!