|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/21/2007
Posts: 603
Location: UK
|
I hope the headline will grab your attention.
The UK government are planning changes to the Copyright laws. This will lead to a situation where anyone can use images with IPTC data missing, even for commercial purposes, and only have to pay a small amount to a collecting society if caught. It is called Orphan Works. There are other adverse changes too. Please sign the petition below to register your displeasure.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/copyrightreform/?signed=f52ac1f.4da5b3
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/28/2009
Posts: 72
Location: Manchester UK
|
Wrong URL ! it should be: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/copyrightreform/
We call on the Government to abandon plans, announced on 29 October 2009, to allow free and unhindered reproduction of photographs without payment or credit on non-commercial websites.
This is completely at odds with the Government's stance on file sharing of other forms of intellectual property (films and music) and raises the prospect of crippling thousands of small businesses while protecting large corporate interests.
The proposal uses phrases like "It must be seen to benefit all parties, not some at the expense of others" and yet the Government's proposal does exactly that. It takes the work of photographers who have invested time and money in creating work, and gives it to people who have no relationship with that work, for free.
Photographic businesses are already under severe strain and the proliferation of digital cameras gives the impression that creating professional quality imagery is easy. This will further devalue the work of professional photographers and destroy the photographic industry.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/16/2007
Posts: 173
Location: Sweden
|
"You must be a British citizen or resident to sign the petition."
So, I couldn't sign. But my concern is not less.
If UK brings to live such a "law" and my country doesn't; and my images get orphaned....??
The problem is global one, isn't it?
Or I misunderstand all together
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/21/2007
Posts: 603
Location: UK
|
Yes, you must be a British citizen to sign it.
You are correct that it affects everyone. Get your local photographer organisation to write to the British Government to protest. The proposal does not only cover non-commercial websites.
The MP responsible is David Lammy MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Please write to him. I am sure he will be surprised that foreign photographers do not fancy having their work used by all and sundry.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/3/2008
Posts: 304
Location: cambs
|
Bob Croxford wrote:Yes, you must be a British citizen to sign it.
You are correct that it affects everyone. Get your local photographer organisation to write to the British Government to protest. The proposal does not only cover non-commercial websites.
The MP responsible is David Lammy MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Please write to him. I am sure he will be surprised that foreign photographers do not fancy having their work used by all and sundry.
I bet David Lammy is NOT a photographer.
Allan
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/6/2007
Posts: 1,392
|
For some times now I have come to be convince, beyond reasonable doubts, that politicians, through government, bully and rob little guys who have no power and pass it to those with power and money and receive a few drops of gravy.
Petition will not work. It is not a stick and there is nothing you can offer which they cannot just take.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/21/2007
Posts: 603
Location: UK
|
dingdong wrote:I bet David Lammy is NOT a photographer. Allan
I heard that he was surprised to be told that photography was covered by copyright when he first took the job.
And for anyone who thinks petitions and letters to your MP don't work I'll remind you that an election looms. During the debate that led to the 1988 Act the newspapers wanted use news photographs without payment. A letter writing campaign to MPs caused this small amendment.
(2) Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
Think about it. Would there be any press photography without that little bit in brackets?
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/17/2008
Posts: 465
Location: Shropshire
|
Hopefully Austin Mitchell MP will have a quiet word with Mr Lammy. He is a keen photographer and always one to stand up for photographers' rights.
Brian
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/13/2007
Posts: 1,347
Location: Ireland
|
I just signed and got my email from number 10 (I'm an ex-pat and hold a UK NUJ card). Austin Mitchell is my favourite MP. Stout Lancashire lad!
Stephen
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/25/2007
Posts: 444
Location: suffolk
|
IMPORTANT BUMP!
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/15/2007
Posts: 963
Location: UK
|
A lot of this is going to need EU wide legislation and that particular machine does not move quickly. These are raw proposals, this is not legislation, it's not even a white paper. Details are lacking and it's the detail we need to fight on. For example, making it illegal to intentionally orphan a work by removing IPTC from a file. All this sort of stuff will take years to flesh out and harmonise across the EU. No need to take the suicide pill just yet.
Have a read: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/c-strategy-digitalage.pdf
Jaybee
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/7/2009
Posts: 269
|
This is particularly sneaky, because especially images for web tend to be stripped of their META data for the purpose of keeping file sizes small.
How does it work if they snatch images from your website for example?
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/7/2007
Posts: 818
Location: Now in beautiful downtown Cowwarr ( google it :)
|
Sounds like a crude copy of the US "Orphan Works" bill.
A great idea for the big businesses that stand to make millions of dollars from it.
Not great for the little guy who makes the images. 
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/4/2008
Posts: 24
Location: Mexico
|
Bob Croxford wrote:I hope the headline will grab your attention. The UK government are planning changes to the Copyright laws. This will lead to a situation where anyone can use images with IPTC data missing, even for commercial purposes, and only have to pay a small amount to a collecting society if caught. It is called Orphan Works. There are other adverse changes too. Please sign the petition below to register your displeasure. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/copyrightreform/?signed=f52ac1f.4da5b3
Does it really say that "anyone can use images with IPTC data missing" or are you promoting a tempist in a teapot by misrepresenting the facts of what orphan works are and how there must be proof of an extensive search for the owner before they can be used?
1. Document a search according to Best Practices prescribed by the Copyright Office;
2. File a Notice of Use with the Copyright Office; and
3. Agree to, and actually pay, a Reasonable Fee should the author later be found. If not, they will have no recourse to an "orphan works" claim.
May be the bill is no good and shouldn't be enacted but please use facts instead of exaggerations or scare tactics to stir up support.
http://realitysquared.deviantart.com/journal/18227968/?moodonly=69
UK information
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/gowers_review_intellectual_property/gowersreview_index.cfm
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/21/2007
Posts: 603
Location: UK
|
Perico wrote:
Does it really say that "anyone can use images with IPTC data missing" or are you promoting a tempist in a teapot by misrepresenting the facts of what orphan works are and how there must be proof of an extensive search for the owner before they can be used?
1. Document a search according to Best Practices prescribed by the Copyright Office;
2. File a Notice of Use with the Copyright Office; and
3. Agree to, and actually pay, a Reasonable Fee should the author later be found. If not, they will have no recourse to an "orphan works" claim.
May be the bill is no good and shouldn't be enacted but please use facts instead of exaggerations or scare tactics to stir up support.
Dear Perico
Please do not confuse US law with UK proposals. Please do not confuse earlier reports with current proposals.
What is currently proposed is free use of any image for 'PERSONAL' use. This means that any teenage blogger can destroy exclusivity and value in an image. I have had a case myself when an infringement of one of my images cost me about £5,000 because the image could no longer be described as exclusive.
Who will decide a reasonable fee for breaching my copyright? A quango who think that £7 for a picture is a 'good' fee is who. I am currently quoting Alamy's price calculator for web use. That is £615 for 3 years. Just how many infringements do I have to have if £7 is all I get for me to see this as theft of my income?
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 166
Location: Tasmania
|
Yes, this is a worry. Thanks for bringing it to our attention Bob.
Even at this early proposal / sounding out stage I agree it is essential those considering moves like this hear loudly and clearly a strong and reasoned objection. If not they will continue in their ignorance assuming they have a good idea and before you know it its too late to fight it.
Alex
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/20/2009
Posts: 71
Location: South Africa
|
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
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/12/2007
Posts: 62
Location: Norwich
|
I have signed and passed on the link.
Kevin.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/12/2007
Posts: 62
Location: Norwich
|
I sent this to David Lammy "I understand you are the main party trying to give my business away under the Orphan Works legalising theft bill. Why is it that every other artist gets support for maintaining copyright wether it be music or the motion picture industry. While us photographers have to argue with Governments not to sign over our rights to corporate business and the something for nothing brigade.
It costs me a lot of time and money to get my images, yet you feel I should provide them for nearly free to multi National big business. I pay taxes and have a vote, I look for protection as a Citizen from my Government to allow me to go about my work and make a fair profit. Not for my Government to try and undermine my business for the benefit of others. If you want to amend copyright law I suggest you make it easier for those it is designed to protect to claim against the infringers and not easier for those that want to abuse others work and efforts.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Allen."
You can send your views also to him at http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/contact.htm
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/3/2008
Posts: 670
Location: Hastings
|
Does it really say that "anyone can use images with IPTC data missing" or are you promoting a tempist in a teapot by misrepresenting the facts of what orphan works are and how there must be proof of an extensive search for the owner before they can be used?
1. Document a search according to Best Practices prescribed by the Copyright Office;
2. File a Notice of Use with the Copyright Office; and
3. Agree to, and actually pay, a Reasonable Fee should the author later be found. If not, they will have no recourse to an "orphan works" claim.
May be the bill is no good and shouldn't be enacted but please use facts instead of exaggerations or scare tactics to stir up support.
http://realitysquared.deviantart.com/journal/18227968/?moodonly=69
UK information
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/gowers_review_intellectual_property/gowersreview_index.cfm
[/quote]
Perico, I can't speak for the Mexican government, but ever since Blair became Britain's PM in 1997, New Labour has gone against all of the reasons that the Labour Party was originally formed for over a hundred years ago, namely as a party which would protect the working classes against exploitation. Since 1997 the only people who count with New Labour are big businesses, individuals with loads of money and rich lobbyists. The ordinary working man and woman in the UK are so much dross to New Labour. Our government is as trustworthy as a ferret in a hamster cage. This legislation is just what we expect from it.
Mick
|
|
|
Guest |
RSS feeds