Well, this should be interesting...

jontucker said:
I would be rather upset if you stole my job.
Click to expand...

By throwing images out there to be used free by anyone who wants them.....that's exactly what you are contributing to. There IS some poor faceless photographer out there who's life is going down the pan because people are either too lazy or worse, don't care.
 
joescrivens said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's not the same thing at all. A photo is the product of my hobby not the tool I use to create it. You can equate the car to the camera I guess and then yes I would be ****ed.
 
BouncyMelons said:
By throwing images out there to be used free by anyone who wants them.....that's exactly what you are contributing to. There IS some poor faceless photographer out there who's life is going down the pan because people are either too lazy or worse, don't care.
Click to expand...

Ok, you've convinced me, I'll stop - now what about everyone else?
 
jontucker said:
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!
Click to expand...

You seem to be only selectively responding to points and anything that proves your theory wrong you ignore.

The bill doesn't correspond to an analogy like this. It's more that all cycle paths are closed and instead you have to ride an exercise bike. Ok you can still get exercise but you can't ride your bike outside anymore - that's ok with you?
 
I don't shoot stock Jon, but I do try to educate each and every photographer I come accross that this is the potential outcome.

It's all we can do sadly.
 
jontucker said:
That's not the same thing at all. A photo is the product of my hobby not the tool I use to create it. You can equate the car to the camera I guess and then yes I would be ****ed.
Click to expand...

Is the photo not something you own? It's made by your camera yes, but everything is made by something else. Essentially it's using something you own to profit myself.
 
jontucker said:
It's a losing battle Ali, in fact it's already lost.
Click to expand...

That's it in a nutshell. The bill will just acknowledge it.

Here's another daft analogy: if you move to France, nobody will understand what you're saying. So you can either get everyone else to speak English, or adapt and learn to speak French yourself.
 
I'd do that to get away from this poo hole!!!
 
trencheel303 said:
I'd do that to get away from this poo hole!!!
Click to expand...

Haha! A bit extreme maybe!

If you can't beat em, join em! You could always launch a new magazine though - loads of free content about. It's really easy y'know, you'll make a fortune :D
 
trencheel303 said:
I'd do that to get away from this poo hole!!!
Click to expand...

the grass always seems greener. Other countries have just as many issues, if not more.

I thought i wanted to emigrate but after spending time in lots of different places I am quite happy in good ol blighty thanks!
 
BouncyMelons said:
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.
Click to expand...

I couldn't find what you mentioned in either act, besides the Coroner's Act which does say that it is illegal to posses an indecent [pornographic] image of a child, but it also states:
...being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself."
Click to expand...
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g62
Am I missing something?

Criminal Justice Act 2003
Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Anyway, onto the topic at hand, I find the Digital Economy Bill outrageous, especially the part which allows Lord Mandelson a very large remit to change the law without passing further legislation.
 
Not to stray too far off topic but if you had a still from SAW on your bedroom wall then this section (Criminal justice) could easily be applied.

Exclusion of classified films etc. .(1)
Section 63 does not apply to excluded images. .
(2)
An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work. .
(3)
But such an image is not an “excluded image” if— .
(a)
it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and .
(b)
it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

The Criminal Justice Act you were looking at was out of date, you were looking at 2003 when they sneaked a new one through in 2008. :)
 
BouncyMelons said:
Not to stray too far off topic but if you had a still from SAW on your bedroom wall then this section (Criminal justice) could easily be applied.

Exclusion of classified films etc. .(1)
Section 63 does not apply to excluded images. .
(2)
An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work. .
(3)
But such an image is not an “excluded image” if— .
(a)
it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and .
(b)
it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

The Criminal Justice Act you were looking at was out of date, you were looking at 2003 when they sneaked a new one through in 2008. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification, I was a little lost.
 
Slightly off topic but I get the sense that this government is determined to cause as much misery as possible before May! They really are not doing themselves any favours for any chance of re election! Not that I can see that happening anyway!
 
The only hope of having it stopped is due to the election. If they don't get it through by May then they can't pass any legislation during a period called purdour which is, in effect the last few weeks before any election.
 
As this is only a UK bill, I don't see how it will work anyway. If a publisher wants to use an orphaned image they will still have to prove that it originated in the UK (to avoid getting their asses sued off when a US tog sees his image in a UK magazine!). So if they have to, and can, prove where it originated, it's not orphaned!? :thinking:
 
Question.

Is there no way that image ID cannot be indelibly embedded in a file, in such a way that it can be used for any proper means, but without ever losing that ID - either accidentally, or as part of a legitimate reproduction process, or deliberately removed?

I don't mean watermarking, which actually prevents the image from being used at all, at least without cropping it off or Photoshopping it out.

What are the options here?
 
HoppyUK said:
Question.

Is there no way that image ID cannot be indelibly embedded in a file, in such a way that it can be used for any proper means, but without ever losing that ID - either accidentally, or as part of a legitimate reproduction process, or deliberately removed?

I don't mean watermarking, which actually prevents the image from being used at all, at least without cropping it off or Photoshopping it out.

What are the options here?
Click to expand...

Click - Not currently used with image files but I see no reason why it couldn't be adapted.
 
HoppyUK said:
Question.

Is there no way that image ID cannot be indelibly embedded in a file, in such a way that it can be used for any proper means, but without ever losing that ID - either accidentally, or as part of a legitimate reproduction process, or deliberately removed?

I don't mean watermarking, which actually prevents the image from being used at all, at least without cropping it off or Photoshopping it out.

What are the options here?
Click to expand...

Them that know say that it is impossible to prevent file info from being separated from the image.
 
It is impossible to stop it but it's perfectly possible to make it difficult. Like DRM does now with audio/video. If somebody wants to get around it, they will.

It actually wouldn't help anyway though. I think all we need is for it to be harder for exif data to be removed accidentally. If people are going to deliberately orphan images then all the encoding in the world isn't going to stop them.
 
jerry12953 said:
Them that know say that it is impossible to prevent file info from being separated from the image.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking, currently.

It would need something that 'supported' the image, in that if the support ID was removed, the image would collapse.

I'm guessing that this might have to be done at pixel level, which is probably impractical on a big file, but it could be attached to small key elements of the image that would render it useless if removed.

That sounds a bit like an invisible watermark, and that could still be reconstructed in Photoshop. But it could be made very difficult and time consuming, and would surely leave behind evidence that the image had been tampered with.

As Jon says, the point here is that if you make it hard enough for someone to deliberately orphan an image, then they are going to find it preferable to use it legitimately, or perhaps not at all.

I can't believe that such a system is beyond the wit of Adobe.
 
If people want to deliberately orphan an image then a simple screen grab will do the job perfectly well.

Is that really the issue though Hoppy, are we not more concerned with the 90% of images on the internet that are (apparently) ALREADY orphaned? and how they became orphaned?
 
jontucker said:
If people want to deliberately orphan an image then a simple screen grab will do the job perfectly well.

Is that really the issue though Hoppy, are we not more concerned with the 90% of images on the internet that are (apparently) ALREADY orphaned? and how they became orphaned?
Click to expand...

I don't mean screen grabs Jon. If you don't want that to happen, then I accept that a low res water marked image is the best you can do. Short of not posting it at all. That at least would prevent a lot of casual theft.

I'm thinking that when a legitimate high res sale is made and the image published, if at that time the image ID is removed for whatever reason, then that image is effectively an orphan and who knows what will then happen to it over time.

I just find it impossible to believe that, if this is a real problem that needs sorting, a simple and practical solution is not far away. It might not be 100% bullet proof but in the days of film, the fact that it was difficult and costly to make a really good duplicate was enough to stop most abuse.

On existing orphans, I'm not sure much can be done about that. At the end of the day, the shop lifting analogy is probably a good one. It is part of the cost of retail that we all end up paying. If you put stuff out on open display, shop keepers just have to do what they can and then pass the extra cost on to customers.
 
The trouble is that, at the moment, some programs retain embedded info and some don't. There needs to be a standard that all software vendors are made to follow when handling images. Can't see that happening any time soon as most of the vendors (the big ones anyway) are US companies and they aren't getting this Bill imposed on them.
 
I can not see how this bill could work. The cost of removing millions of CCTV camera that film public places would be huge, and if they did not remove them, I'd be in the queue at my local council for compensation as they would have broke the new law by filming me.

It's just another ill thought out law by labour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top