Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: UK Proposed Copyright Law Changes - Henry VIII Clauses - Secondary Legislation  (Read 3230 times)
N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 291


WWW
« on: January 15, 2013, 07:54:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Implications for photographers' around the globe.

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2235856/photography-industry-shows-mass-opposition-to-government-copyright-changes

http://www.stop43.org.uk/pages/find_out_more.html - Possible implications re clauses 66, 67 and 68.

The thinking behind the proposed legislation is that it will pump £500m into the economy over the next 10 years - http://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Consumers-given-more-copyright-freedom-68542.aspx - Bringing the law into line with ordinary people’s reasonable expectations will boost respect for copyright, on which our creative industries rely. I am odds with this Gov statement, maybe I am living on a different planet.

Amazing how desperate Gov measures (generous defences in law to steal images) are taken when the economy is in a slump.

Intellectual Property Office Contact details.

information@ipo.gov.uk

Tel: 01633 814000

Ask for the policy Team dealing with Photographic Copyright under the Enterprise & Regulatory reform Bill

Policy team staff returned two of my phone calls - lengthy discussions.

Next on the list is my M.P. - http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/







« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 05:39:10 AM by N Walker » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2013, 11:04:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't understand why there is any question with regards to Orphan Works. If someone wants to use an image and can't identify the author, then that should be the end of it: the image is out of bounds and must not be used. Go create and pay for your own.

Which part of that can't people understand?

As for the joke about need for legislation that's clear enough for the general public to understand, what in hell does the general public know or even care about copyright? They think it's all free; a hobbyists dream of publication, so help him along with the airing of his work! Those using professional print or other forms of distribution know only too well what copyright is; they just try it on hoping to score a freebie.

Insofar as the using of people's images because they appear on a chat forum, why should that have anything to do with it? Is LuLa a chat forum? Are our images open to legal lifting if they appear here? Raises interesting questions about the Internet - any interesting answers?

Rob C
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1614



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2013, 11:55:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Are our images open to legal lifting if they appear here?

No, but the problem is if someone lifts say a Rob C image and posts it elsewhere how will anyone know it's a Rob C image and the copyright belongs to Rob C?

Raises interesting questions about the Internet - any interesting answers?

The answer is embedded metadata. When I save a Rob C image to my hard drive and open in for example Photoshop and go to File Info I see there is no embedded metadata. There is no way of knowing who created the image and who owns the copyright, it is in effect an orphan work.

Lesson here is to always ensure that metadata is embedded and available for all to see.

Well done to Paul Ellis an others who are fighting our corner!
  
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 12:34:49 PM by KLaban » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2013, 01:16:41 PM »
ReplyReply

No, but the problem is if someone lifts say a Rob C image and posts it elsewhere how will anyone know it's a Rob C image and the copyright belongs to Rob C?

The answer is embedded metadata. When I save a Rob C image to my hard drive and open in for example Photoshop and go to File Info I see there is no embedded metadata. There is no way of knowing who created the image and who owns the copyright, it is in effect an orphan work.

Lesson here is to always ensure that metadata is embedded and available for all to see.

Well done to Paul Ellis an others who are fighting our corner!
  


That's interesting: there's all the metadata on the NEFs; how does it go missing? I thought that if it was written onto the original file in camera, that it followed out from Nikon's Capture NX2 in TIFF-form, still permanently tacked onto the file when it gets into PS and then turned into jpegs for the web. Lordy! I wonder now about my website which does have a line on the cover/home stating the site contains no orphans. Oh shit, how complex does digital have to get?

Rob C
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1614



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2013, 02:06:55 PM »
ReplyReply


That's interesting: there's all the metadata on the NEFs; how does it go missing? I thought that if it was written onto the original file in camera, that it followed out from Nikon's Capture NX2 in TIFF-form, still permanently tacked onto the file when it gets into PS and then turned into jpegs for the web. Lordy! I wonder now about my website which does have a line on the cover/home stating the site contains no orphans. Oh shit, how complex does digital have to get?

Rob, I had the same problem with my last batch of web images, all the  copyright and authoring metadata was present and correct on the exported tiffs but it went absent without leave on conversion to jpeg. It would be worth checking if your website jpegs have the copyright data embedded.
Logged

BrianWJH
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2013, 03:40:51 PM »
ReplyReply

The answer is embedded metadata. When I save a Rob C image to my hard drive and open in for example Photoshop and go to File Info I see there is no embedded metadata. There is no way of knowing who created the image and who owns the copyright, it is in effect an orphan work.

Lesson here is to always ensure that metadata is embedded and available for all to see.   

Again, it's a bit like putting a lock on a door, it discourages the average person but does not stop a determined thief.

Metadata can easily be overwritten/altered.

Cheers.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1614



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2013, 03:48:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Again, it's a bit like putting a lock on a door, it discourages the average person but does not stop a determined thief.

Metadata can easily be overwritten/altered.

Indeed it can, but I've done very nicely when I've caught that determined thief.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2013, 01:02:25 AM »
ReplyReply

how does it go missing?
Many services, eg Flickr, hold images on servers that are then the image is resized to suit display requirements. At that point lots of metadata is stripped out when re-served.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1614



WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2013, 06:53:54 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.tineye.com/ - a Web reverse search engine is proving useful to track down misused images, although they are still cataloguing millions of images.

Certainly an excellent resource. Another option is Google 'Search by Image'.

Be prepared to be amazed/frightened/angry/pissed off... by the number of scrotes misusing one's images.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2013, 09:17:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob,

Photoshop> File > Save for Web and Devices - there are several options in the metadata drop down list, one of the options is 'none' which will ignore any metadata in the original file and produce a jpeg copy void of metadata - the default option for deceitful people who steal images.

http://www.tineye.com/ - a Web reverse search engine is proving useful to track down misused images, although they are still cataloguing millions of images.



Thanks, I'll have a look at that next time I work on the images; I don't usually go via Save For Web; I just make jpegs at the size I need and Save As into a different folder for publishing. Perhaps doing it that way also strips out the metadata. I don't post pix in any other sites than LuLa and, of course, my own website.

Must be a nightmare running a stock library today!

Rob C
Logged

KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2013, 05:45:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm in favour of this thinking if they apply it to goods Tesco sells, I like the idea of walking out with a trolley full of goods I don't think I should pay for.
Logged

Kevin.
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 744



WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2013, 05:33:02 AM »
ReplyReply

What may not be apparent is that this legislation affects the rest of the worlds photographers too.
If this is passed (by the back door without consultation) then a collections agency will decide how much compensation you will get for the use of an image. There is no territorial limit to this so any 'orphan work' can be used and a pittance decided by an agency could be allocated to you.
The whole thing stinks.
The worldwide implication needs to be brought to the attention of the photography community not just the U.K.
Logged
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112



WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2013, 08:22:18 AM »
ReplyReply

One of the issues with modern screen technology is that images that are used online at a relatively high resolution can be "lifted" with a simple screen grab, in which case the only embedded data (besides the actual pixel info) is the screen's profile.

If the image does not carry a visible watermark with the photographer's name in it then it becomes orphan until proven otherwise...
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1614



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2013, 09:32:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Yair, I would have thought more images are lifted by 'Save Picture As' rather than 'Prt Scrn'. But I take your point.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2013, 01:36:52 PM »
ReplyReply

One of the issues with modern screen technology is that images that are used online at a relatively high resolution can be "lifted" with a simple screen grab, in which case the only embedded data (besides the actual pixel info) is the screen's profile.

If the image does not carry a visible watermark with the photographer's name in it then it becomes orphan until proven otherwise...


What resolution would you say should be used for Internet? I thought it all depended on the acual pixel size of the posted image; in other words, a small image wouldn't print out well to paper and a bigger one might. If you select to use a medium or low resolution for your web pics, won't they look terrible where you post them for legitimate viewing?

Rob C
Logged

MarkM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2013, 09:30:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Orphaned works really are a problem for some legitimate uses. The problems happen because we've extended copyright to the point where the distant past is locked up with liability. Having said that, it doesn't seem like anyone can come up with a solution that doesn't screw everyone working today. More thoughts on that and metadata here: http://www.photo-mark.com/notes/2012/dec/03/stop-stripping-metadata/
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2013, 04:16:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Orphaned works really are a problem for some legitimate uses. The problems happen because we've extended copyright to the point where the distant past is locked up with liability. Having said that, it doesn't seem like anyone can come up with a solution that doesn't screw everyone working today. More thoughts on that and metadata here: http://www.photo-mark.com/notes/2012/dec/03/stop-stripping-metadata/



I think that it's really quite simple: if one cannot find the author of a work after a reasonabale search, then that work should remain unuseable. There can be many reasons why the work may not be traceable, including even that it's the originator's intent to remain invisible. That does not mean that it should therefore be open to pirate use.

There are plenty of alternative sources for information in life; because someone stumbles upon something that might suit his purpose doesn't give him any moral or automatic right to use that something. It's just too bad if an advertising agency would like to use a photograph, poem, painting or anything else to illustrate a product or theme but can't discover the author. Just because there's big money riding on it doesn't confer any right of usage: they can just damned well go use their brains and come up with an alternative of their own. Now that would benefit the creative community.

There's already so much information freely available on every subject that attempting to add even more (especially without paying for it) is absolutely objectionable and totally unnecessary. There is no right to grab everything unless someone is there (or even able) to protect their property. It's morally (and should be seen legally) like walking down the street, seeing a door with no name and then deciding hey, it's an orphan! let's go in and take what we like!

Rob C
Logged

MarkM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231



WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2013, 02:41:22 PM »
ReplyReply

You may be right Rob—the best course may be simply to let current copyright remain. But I would argue that it's because of the collateral damage of the legislation not a moral issue.

As much as I hate arguing this side, I disagree with your reasoning. It has never been the intent of copyright protection to allow work to remain invisible or to give authors control over their creations for indefinite lengths of time. It has always been limited and always been a contract that ends with work entering the public domain. It's stated purpose (at least in the US) is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. When it stops doing that it is no longer working.

It's easy to argue against advertising agencies exploiting protected works, but it's much harder to argue against people wishing to restore historic films that are disintegrating before our eyes: http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/pdf/cspdorphanfilm.pdf These are parts of our cultural heritage that are disappearing—the exact opposite of copyright's intended effect.

Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1614



WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2013, 07:00:46 AM »
ReplyReply

News on Google Image Search.

http://www.petapixel.com/2013/01/24/google-unleashes-a-faster-and-sleeker-image-search-experience/

Note the inclusion of Metadata.
Logged

yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112



WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2013, 09:54:08 AM »
ReplyReply


What resolution would you say should be used for Internet? I thought it all depended on the acual pixel size of the posted image; in other words, a small image wouldn't print out well to paper and a bigger one might. If you select to use a medium or low resolution for your web pics, won't they look terrible where you post them for legitimate viewing?

Rob C

That's a good point but would you not like your images to look good on your website? In many cases, especially with landscapes, architecture, cars etc. a larger image will make a bigger (better?) impression (providing that it's a good image of course...)
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad