|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 6
Location: London
|
How easily this debate is descending into childish retorts. This sort of behaviour and firing off letters to MPs can only undermine photographers as a collective and jeopardises reasonable and logical objections to proposed changes to legislation in the future.
I've just read the BJP online article - http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870664 - and was looking forward to seeing passages from the strategy document - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/c-strategy-digitalage.pdf - in order to get a better idea of the debate. Unfortunately, it doesn't make any citations to support the doom-mongering. As a result, I'm still at something of a loss as to the objections so far.
Philosopher: I'm very cynical of this government and will be equally so of the next. But comparing changes in copyright law to invasions of countries is a little far-fetched. Yes, question the facts, but look at the motives. I don't think tweaking copyright law will secure oil revenues.
I'll question the government's actions but I'll do so based on my own research, not on the basis of 3 lines of text cobbled together by someone who hasn't taken the time to read any of the documentation. And yes, I will take into consideration of the SWPP and the BPPA, but I'll question their authority to the same degree that I question that of the government. Selective cynicism is just as dangerous as it tends to create just the sort of voter that political parties love.
Quote:the two main problems being discussed is the definition of non commercial use, some people believe that just because a website is not making direct money that is non commercial, which as we know is complete rubbish. the removal of the requirement of moral rights means that if your not identified, and they cant find you under orphan works ideas, then you are free to use, so where is the bar on that one. so what if your a model and the new legislation allows you free use to use images made by someone else, to be posted on facebook, anyone read the terms that would allows free use by facebook and anyone who finds it.
The document mentions 'orphan works' and cites BBC audio archives. At no point does it mention free use of images found on the internet. From what I've read, the document doesn't mention this at any point. I can only refer you to SlowTony's previous post:
"Because the owner is the account holder and the hosting website has contact details of the image owner and will have methods to communicate with the owner....therefore the owner is known and traceable. ... Therefore normal criminal and civil law applies to the use of the image, and normal copyright breach is applied. In this case, 'orphan work' definitions do not apply, therefore 'orphan work' legislation will not apply to the stolen image. you may proceed with court or out of court action as before."
I also refer you to the citation from the strategy document that I posted earlier, with my own emphasis added:
Quote:seeking to legitimise non-commercial use of legitimately purchased copyright works
To me, this suggests that it is not referring to images downloaded from the internet. Yes, more detail is needed, and we should keep watch that this does not overlap into the realms of the copyrighted image.
If this is referring to the possible reproduction of photographs that have been bought as prints, it will be more than just photographers who are going to object to this. Artists working in oils and acrylics will be up in arms, and vast sections of the fine art market will be massively undermined. The government may be ignorant and stupid when it comes to many things, but it seems unlikely that this is what they have in mind.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/3/2008
Posts: 670
Location: Hastings
|
Kiell wrote:
Philosopher: I'm very cynical of this government and will be equally so of the next. But comparing changes in copyright law to invasions of countries is a little far-fetched.
With respect Kiell, I was not comparing changes in copyright law to invasions of countries. Why do people take quotes out of context?. This is what the media et.al. are always doing, leading to the immense amount of cynicism that abounds. I was using the government's lies about WMD as one of three examples of it's mendacity, two of which were unrelated to invasion. I could have chosen another 103 additonal examples of political lies, but we all know them anyway. We can see their lips moving.
Mick
|
|
Groups: Administration
Joined: 2/6/2007
Posts: 231
|
If we can keep the conversation and discussion on photographic policies rather than weapons of mass destruction/war/general politics we will allow this thread to continue.
Fair warning!
Alamy
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 6
Location: London
|
A fair response, Mick. I guess the point that I was trying to make is that if a government is lying, there's usually a motive. Until more information becomes apparent, I'm reserving judgement.  Regarding the subject at hand, I'm not sure yet why the government would seek to massively undermine the entire creative industry.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/17/2008
Posts: 994
|
dupe post.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/17/2008
Posts: 994
|
For those who believe that metadata and content tracking enables images to be tracked back to rightful copyright owners they should perhaps look to the SAA Metadata survey.
http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/PR-Metasurvey-May08
Quote from the PR release.
"Project Chair David Riecks reports, "but we are concerned to see that essential metadata is often lost as images move through the workflows of stock distributors and end users."
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/15/2009
Posts: 45
Location: birmingham
|
right so what if someone strips meta data from an image and then posts it to facebook, myspace, and as many of my pics have ended up on the bbc website. in theory my stripping the meta data you have created an orphan, if cropped its an orphan, someone does a montage from 3 images, its an orphan, who decides the value, who compensates you for an image which can no longer be sold exclusivily, over at epuk, it has been discussed, it will devalue what we do, they had plenty of information from aop, nuj, bipp, swpp, epuk, ap, bjp and hopefully alamy as well, they have chosen to ignore it all in favour of large corporations, and the individual who has no knowledge, this really is the end of the wedge, there will be some length replies on copyright action at some stage. I can see massive problems for alamy itself as well, having to register copyright just how much is that going to cost ????, if your in the usa, unless you have registered your work with the library of congress, forget any lawyer wanting to take it on. all the libraries are in the process of registering their works, so they can sue, alamy is in a unique position, whether it will that I don't know, dont blame them if they dont, it will cost thousands, the uk legislation is worse than what has been passed in the usa in my view.
replies to mps do help as well as ones from orgs, it does work.
cheers
brummie
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 6
Location: London
|
Brummie, I refer you again to the document which I'm hoping that you have read:
Quote:A scheme which encouraged the identification of orphan works’ authors, for example as a precondition for their licensed use by another party, could benefit groups such as photographers that are concerned about current infringing use.
You are leaping from:
- the possibility of a scheme suggested in a research document that contemplates changes to legislation, that suggests establishing a body (one assumes) to deliberate on things such as the copyright of BBC archive audio recordings, in order to allow public use
to:
- facebook stealing all of our photographs.
Yes, writing to MPs does work. Mustering ill-informed hyperbole can potentially undermine such actions.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/4/2007
Posts: 253
Location: UK
|
brummie wrote:hi there tony,
the two main problems being discussed is the definition of non commercial use, some people believe that just because a website is not making direct money that is non commercial, which as we know is complete rubbish.
the removal of the requirement of moral rights means that if your not identified, and they cant find you under orphan works ideas, then you are free to use, so where is the bar on that one.
so what if your a model and the new legislation allows you free use to use images made by someone else, to be posted on facebook, anyone read the terms that would allows free use by facebook and anyone who finds it.
so if you work is scanned by the british library would that be ok for them to make postcards and sell them ??, make an exhibition which at the moment you should be paid for, publish in a book and sell the book, its a minefield.
there too many grey areas, in the new proposed rules, the laws need tightening from photographers point of view not loosening.
the issues are wide especially for us lot who rely on the purchase of images for some if not all of your income.
brummie
I have only been looking at the 'orphan work' issue and how it affects the copyright of photography on the web. So my comments are based around that knowledge.
the two main problems being discussed is the definition of non commercial use, some people believe that just because a website is not making direct money that is non commercial, which as we know is complete rubbish.
I don't know (yet) the report's definition of non-commercial, but no image can be used outside of existing copyright law unless it is declared an 'orphan work'. there can be no automatic right to use an image as an 'orphan work'. At the moment the literature is quite clear that an 'orphan work' designation is something that has to be declared by a potential user (example...the British Library has to show that the copyright holder cannot be found).
The literature has left me in no doubt that all the images that I have on all known websites (my website, Alamy etc etc etc...) cannot by definition be declared as 'orphan works'. therefore all my images are safe from any usage whatsoever from proposed changes in copyright legislation. Of course they can still be stolen, but that can happen now.
the removal of the requirement of moral rights means that if your not identified, and they cant find you under orphan works ideas, then you are free to use, so where is the bar on that one.
the following comment refers to online images, as this is what is the primary concern of photographers....
It is impossible for legitamately held images on a website to be declared 'orphan works'. It is highly unlikely that stolen images held online with all owner related metadata stripped out to be given a 'orphan works' designation. Because if images of yours are held illegally online somewhere unknown to you and therefore with no known owner, then the owner of the website that illegally has your images will not be able to provide the information needed for those images to be legally declared 'orphan works'.
Why do I say this....because there would be reasonable suspicion that the images on a website where the website owner coudln't tell you who the copyright owner was, were illegal to start of with....you couldn't declare something 'orphan works' where there is a suspicion of previous image theft. Any other activity regarding those images would be illegal and can happen today even without copyright law changes.
so what if your a model and the new legislation allows you free use to use images made by someone else, to be posted on facebook, anyone read the terms that would allows free use by facebook and anyone who finds it.
Unless the images in question have been declared 'orphan works' then normal copyright laws apply
so if you work is scanned by the british library would that be ok for them to make postcards and sell them ??, make an exhibition which at the moment you should be paid for, publish in a book and sell the book, its a minefield.
It would be if the British Library had had them declared 'orphan works'. But remember the copyright law changes are specifically to bring them up to date with the digital age, so a lot of this is to do with digitising documents...at least for the British Library it is.
Stripping an image of metadata does not automatically designate it an 'orphan work'. You the copyright owner still own the copyright, just as you do now. If it's on the bbc with no credit and no metadata, it still cannot be an 'orphan work'.
Philosopher asked me why the photog. press are complaining about this... the BJP, SWPP etc etc etc.......well, it's their job to do so....it doesn't matter if they are justified or not. They get paid to create stories from the literature, and they are doing a good job of creating stories. To quote philosopher himself:
" I was not comparing changes in copyright law to invasions of countries. Why do people take quotes out of context?. This is what the media et.al. are always doing,leading to the immense amount of cynicism that abounds " I couldn't have put it better myself.
I agree with Kiell, there are no citations in the BJP article, there are a number of quotes from organisations that do not seem to relate to the literature in any way.
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870664
SlowTony
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/21/2007
Posts: 603
Location: UK
|
Dear Slow tony
I wish I had some of what you have been smoking.
Have you read any of the documents from the SAA, Illustrators Partnership, Frontier Foundation ??????
OW are a real threat to photographers. Alamy, until the 1st Bapla metadata committeee meeting were sending out our files with no contact information at all. How do you think a potential user of one of those 'legal' files is going to find you or me?
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 6
Location: London
|
Bob, if you're going to mention articles, please cite them, or at least link to them. It's noticeable that the people talking with any reasoned logic here aren't slinging childish insults.
To quote Tony:
Quote:At the moment the literature is quite clear that an 'orphan work' designation is something that has to be declared by a potential user (example...the British Library has to show that the copyright holder cannot be found).
If Alamy has possession of a file, it has to have been submitted by a user. Therefore the file inevitably has origins that can be traced. Alamy would have to go to some lengths to prove otherwise.
Again, have you read the strategy document? I repeat myself: The document mentions 'orphan works' and cites BBC audio archives. At no point does it mention free use of images found on the internet. From what I've read, the document doesn't mention this at any point.
I could continue quoting from it but it does seem to be becoming a little pointless.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/4/2007
Posts: 253
Location: UK
|
Bob Croxford wrote:Dear Slow tony
I wish I had some of what you have been smoking.
Have you read any of the documents from the SAA, Illustrators Partnership, Frontier Foundation ??????
OW are a real threat to photographers. Alamy, until the 1st Bapla metadata committeee meeting were sending out our files with no contact information at all. How do you think a potential user of one of those 'legal' files is going to find you or me?
I have not read any mention of the word 'metadata' in the literature. The word that is used is traceability. And I think (can't be bothered to double check) that 'due diligence' must be used when tracing the copyright owner.
I haven't read any words that say that something becomes an 'orphan work' automatically. But I might be wrong.
What I do know is the review of copyright has nothing to do with making photographs easier to use legally for free...we are not being persecuted by the government.
From what I have read the lack of 'orphan works' legislation is a genuine problem that is preventing valuable copyright material from being made available (in a fair way) to the public.
I don't see why 'orphan works' are a real threat to photographers.
remember the image must be untraceable in order to become 'orphaned'.
You are not the only one who thinks that a lack of metadata automatically defines an image as an 'orphan work' and therefore making it legally usable without permission from the copyright owner. But I have not read this anywhere, and this is not the intended purpose of 'orphan works' legislation. So, can you provide a link and some directions as to where this is stated, because I have missed it.
SlowTony
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/15/2009
Posts: 45
Location: birmingham
|
hi there slow tony,
my understanding from discussions over at other lists that "'due diligence" will be severely reduced, so where the bar is no one is quite sure, if its like a search for 5 mins of a data base, then that would be bad, the problem with these proposals is that there are too many grey areas far more than there are at present.
i suggest if you haven't already listen to photolegal website for the their lastest podcast as well.
http://www.photolegal.com/
cheers
brummie
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/1/2009
Posts: 20
Location: Hampshire
|
ispy wrote:Begs the question ... why would they want to bring this into law? What does it achieve and who does it benefit? Trying to answer these questions leads me to suspect it can only be the result of lobbying by parties with vested interests in such a law. I then fall off the cliff and land in the lap of publishers (digital and others) ... can't think of anyone else who'd motivate for it. I'd imagine if this answer could be found (and proved), that would be the best way of fighting this proposal ... expose the potential thieves. I do wonder, if this law sees the light of day and some yokel in the UK nicks one of my images, whether I could sue his pants off using my country's copyright laws or whether he's protected by the UK law ... iSpy photography
Yokel? I hope you are not suggested all UK citizens are backwards in some way.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/20/2009
Posts: 71
Location: South Africa
|
Brian Parkes wrote:Yokel? I hope you are not suggested all UK citizens are backwards in some way.
Wouldn't that get this thread heated up a tad!
If they steal my pics they are!!
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/4/2007
Posts: 253
Location: UK
|
brummie wrote:hi there slow tony, my understanding from discussions over at other lists that "'due diligence" will be severely reduced, so where the bar is no one is quite sure, if its like a search for 5 mins of a data base, then that would be bad, the problem with these proposals is that there are too many grey areas far more than there are at present. i suggest if you haven't already listen to photolegal website for the their lastest podcast as well. http://www.photolegal.com/cheers brummie
In the literature due 'diligence' is only mentioned in the current definitions of 'orphan work'. The current definition being a 'photo with no metadata', with no legislative protection.
Your concern about grey areas is correct, but less relevant if you extend your argument to other areas of the 'orphan work' discussion as laid out in the literature.......which I will cover here in this post.....
I think the OP is getting muddled with the existing definition of 'orphan works' (as applied to photography), and a legal definition of 'orphan works' as will exist after it is written into new (as yet non-existent) legislation.
The current definition of 'orphan works' in a photographic context has probably been supplied by the photographic industry and is defined as a 'photograph with no metadata'.
In reality this is obviously not the case. why? because a photographer can have photographs without metadata on his or her website but there can be copyright notices and contact information on the website, images can also be watermarked, therefore making ownership very easily identifiable.
But for the purposes of creating legislation it is wise to accept an orphaned photo to be one without metadata, as this will cover all bases when drawing up legislation that must be inclusive of all (online?) photographic work.
I get this information from the literature. The excerpts in italics come from the following document.....
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/digitalbritain-finalreport-jun09.pdf
Here is the definition of an 'orphan work' as it is today....This is stated in point 41 on page 116.
"Photographers are concerned that photographs posted on websites frequently lack identifying
metadata, and hence the evidence of ownership is lost"
But remember this is a description of the situation today, and the report is saying that the above situation is unsatisfactory because people may be/are using such images illegally. It also states that users want to use the 'orphan works' but don't because they don't know who to pay, and commercial use of an 'orphan work' (as it stands today) can lead to criminal prosecution.
To reduce the ability of copyright infringement in the future, the following is stated......
Part of point 44 (page 116)
"anybody wishing to use orphan works will be expected to secure an appropriate permission
from the Government first, and permission will only be granted where the
proposed operator can satisfy the Government that the business methods
and procedures involved satisfy key minimum requirements, including
making appropriate searches for the true owners and making provision for
the reimbursement of rights holders who are subsequently found and claim
for the use of their work."
What this means is that after new legislation, an 'orphan work' will no longer just be an image with no metadata. there will be a number of hoops to jump through to assign the label of 'orphan works' to an image. There will be a formal procedure in the form of an application to define an image as an 'orphan work'.
However, all this is just talk at the moment.....but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever (from the literature) that the OP comment is in any way true.
All the evidence (from the literature) suggests that the OP comment is absolutely not the case.
My prediction for the future would be that digitised 'orphan works' will be searchable by copyright holders and in the case of images something like tineye would be implemented to facilitate the reuniting of the copyright holder and the 'orphan'.
It should be noted that the literature is the only place where the information is. Photographic organisations are taking this information and putting their own spin on it. Individuals then take the words of journalists and put their own spin on it again. In the end it becomes a game of Chinese whispers.....and what a game this particular issue has become.
SlowTony
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/12/2007
Posts: 450
Location: New Zealand
|
Tineye won't find images on Alamy, or images that are no longer hosted on your website. Everything is untraceable if you don't ask the right question of the person, and I can see due diligence being a bit meaningless.
How about a national collection of Orphan Works, available for use for a fair/modest fee which can be used to pay for running it, and to generate payments to OWs that later find a parent. Maybe you can only claim use as an OW if you downloaded it from the collection. Or, for any image you find that you want to use as an OW, you have to also upload a high res copy to the collection (no fee payable when you are the first do this for that image). For a fee, the collection could also confirm if the image is an OW by carrying out a duly diligent search.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Guest |
RSS feeds