R
Rob.Richards
Guest
Browsing on the BBC found this rather interesting link...
Discuss?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10118823.stm
Discuss?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10118823.stm
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Interesting, insofar as the BBC are very keen to get as much material for free as possible from the public, yet zealously guard the copyright on their material when it appears on the likes of Youtube....
I didn't see them say that in the article. What I did see was someone at Harvard University say people should register their interests in copyright using an online system which is a load of tosh in my opinion.
Copyright law allows for people to assign copyright or to license their works freely if they choose, people who put their work under Creative Commons licenses are doing this fine under the current legislation, why change something that works? All that is needed is the tackling of the orphan works issue.
- Messages
- 10,097
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm a rather surprised by some of the fuzzy thinking displayed in the article
Well, yes. It seems un-theft-like because it is not theft. It is copyright infringement, which is a separate (usually civil) offence. It does not pass the tests set out in Sections 1 to 5 of the Theft Act 1968. Stealing a music CD from a shop (dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it) is theft in law.
Er, no. It is not theft. I'm hardly convinced it's even copyright infringement. By this argument, no-one is allowed to keep newspaper clippings in a scrapbook, as it would be theft.
Well, yes. It seems un-theft-like because it is not theft. It is copyright infringement, which is a separate (usually civil) offence. It does not pass the tests set out in Sections 1 to 5 of the Theft Act 1968. Stealing a music CD from a shop (dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it) is theft in law.
Olivier Laurent said:
Er, no. It is not theft. I'm hardly convinced it's even copyright infringement. By this argument, no-one is allowed to keep newspaper clippings in a scrapbook, as it would be theft.
- Messages
- 5,092
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
Agreed.
Some odd, and incorrect, stuff in there, not least the creation of the 'Magbun photo agency'. :bonk:
Saying about registering photos that you want protected. Don't they already use a similar system in the US? Sounds insane to me, and just opens up all kinds of doors for miscommunication, and people trying to wriggle out of infringing copyright.
- Messages
- 833
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Downloading stuff for free *does* feel un-theft-like, though - putting aside the "intangible property" argument put forward by m'learned friend. I think what they're getting at is that physically taking something feels "wrong" to most people, yet downloading stuff for free (e.g. games, DVDs, etc), burning it off and never paying for it doesn't feel "wrong". I guess it's because the internet is in the home, so it doesn't feel like you're consciously committing any kind of crime.
Typical BBC. They run their wildlife photographer of the year comp each year and grab copyright of all the entries. They then publish the book and make a sizeable profit while none of it goes to the photographers.
No wonder they want the law changed, must be highly inconvenient for them when we don't all roll over to have our bellies rubbed (or egos massaged) while they run off with the proceeds.
No wonder they want the law changed, must be highly inconvenient for them when we don't all roll over to have our bellies rubbed (or egos massaged) while they run off with the proceeds.
- Messages
- 4,435
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Except that the article doesn't say that the BBC want the law changed. The OP said that and the article doesn't support that assertion.
- Messages
- 711
- Name
- Daniel
- Edit My Images
- No
It still feels to me like taking something that's not mine. My brother used to work for choice video and he believes his losing his job was due to the volume of illegal downloads.
To me, it feels like I'm helping to steal peoples livelihoods.
Exactly! Everyone seems to be wailing on the Beeb but they're not the ones looking at changing the law, the article presents two opinions from three supposedly respected authors, nothing more.
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John Aldred
- Edit My Images
- No
Yeah, that's pretty much the way it is.
Like here, everything is copyrighted the instant you create it, but you only really stand a chance in court if it's registered with the copyright office.
It's a set fee each time you file, but when you file, it may be a single printed image, or it could be 20,000 images on a DVD. Either way, it's a single filing cost each time you submit new work(s).
And I believe you can only recover damages if the image is registered (for example, you've signed an exclusive contract with a company for £10K to use an image, then somebody else steals that image, plasters it all over the web before your legitimate customer's advertising campaign has started and now that it's useless your £10K buyer backs out (and potentially sues you for their designer and print costs due to your negligence at protecting your images) - you can sue the infringer for this *if* your work is registered).
Personally, I think it's a good system.
That way, people who don't give a crap about copyright can sit back and let their images be ripped off and commercially exploited by every underhanded company across the planet.
And those that understand the value of copyright, and rely upon it commercially can have their copyrights fully registered and protected - negating the whole "Orphan Works" issues recently causing so much controversy.
If there's a central registry where people can view copyrighted and protected works, they will no longer be able to claim that they couldn't find the author and that it's an "orphan" to be used however they see fit.
If anything it would make it easier to enforce, not people trying to wriggle out of responsibilities.
You can still sue for damages if you don't register you works, there is no legal requirement to register it in the United Kingdom. Copyright exists instantly and is governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Having a registry (such as the UK Copyright Service) just puts money into other people's hands for a service which isn't needed and is inadequate or doesn't cover you for the entirety of the copyright allowed under legislation.
I've been told before that a method you can use for proving you created the works first (or had a copy first) is to send a mastered CD/DVD to yourself using Royal Mail Special Delivery, everything is recorded and dated. Just remember to keep the envelope sealed.
Having a registry (such as the UK Copyright Service) just puts money into other people's hands for a service which isn't needed and is inadequate or doesn't cover you for the entirety of the copyright allowed under legislation.
I've been told before that a method you can use for proving you created the works first (or had a copy first) is to send a mastered CD/DVD to yourself using Royal Mail Special Delivery, everything is recorded and dated. Just remember to keep the envelope sealed.
- Messages
- 100
- Name
- Julian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's £45 for 5 years per work. Is that not per image rather than for an entire CD? Are you basically saying that an amateur photographer should have to pay £45 regularly to protect their photos from being ripped off?
Also, you can't expect a company to look through hundreds and thousands of images to find a single one to check whether it's copyrighted or not?
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John Aldred
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, I was talking about the system in the US, hence the section I quoted.
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John Aldred
- Edit My Images
- No
Again, I was referring to the US system, hence the post segment I quoted.
No, but if such a copyright registration database combined technologies similar to Tineye (not difficult), if you had an image you wanted to use, you would simply need to upload said image to the site, and it would internally check its own database for image similarities, and present you with the copyright owner's contact information to facilitate legal licensing of the image.
Then you wouldn't need to search through hundreds of thousands of images.
- Messages
- 2,097
- Edit My Images
- No
For those of you reading this in Canada you can file a collection of images (unlimited amount) with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office for a small fee of $50. In turn you will have a certificate of ownership. As mentioned above the certificate holds up in court which provides you solid grounds on which to further protect yourself. I would recommend filing for a copyright certificate on a collection of imagery displayed on your website or any other public domain as well as embedding the proper copyright notifications in the EXIF data. The Internet is a big place so protecting yourself against copyright infringement is difficult.
Yes, I was talking about the system in the US, hence the section I quoted.
Ah ok, I thought you were talking about the UK.
- Messages
- 1,294
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Conisdering that most people won't bother companies will just go looking for unprotected images and use them instead of a "register" image.
And how does it work since it is unlikely that most people in the UK will sign up to the US system, so effectively has less rights in the US over the use of thier photographs.
And how does it work since it is unlikely that most people in the UK will sign up to the US system, so effectively has less rights in the US over the use of thier photographs.
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John Aldred
- Edit My Images
- No
No, I'm not suggesting we register with the US system, and I don't believe I ever mentioned that idea.
I'm suggesting we have a system in the UK *like* the US system.
Where those that give a crap about the copyright of their images can have those images registered and MORE protected, and those that don't care can do whatever the hell they want.
It's certainly a better option than leaving things the way they are and allowing people to "orphan" images simply by removing the EXIF data and saying "oh, sorry, I don't know who shot it" - which is what was recently put forward in the house, and what all the big stink was about with press & photographers all over the country.
I'm suggesting we have a system in the UK *like* the US system.
Where those that give a crap about the copyright of their images can have those images registered and MORE protected, and those that don't care can do whatever the hell they want.
It's certainly a better option than leaving things the way they are and allowing people to "orphan" images simply by removing the EXIF data and saying "oh, sorry, I don't know who shot it" - which is what was recently put forward in the house, and what all the big stink was about with press & photographers all over the country.
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Why should we have to pay to protect our property .... ? :shrug:
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John Aldred
- Edit My Images
- No
You paid for a burglar alarm did you not (if it came with the house when you bought it, that counts as a yes, it was part of the deal you paid for
)? You pay for the police via taxes that (eventually, when they can get around to it) respond to your phone call that your house has been broken into do you not?Why is this any different? Why is intellectual property, that could potentially cost you thousands if it's infringed, any different than physical property that also cost money?
The music and movie industries spend millions of pounds a year in an attempt to protect their copyright, why should photographers not have to? What makes us any better than them?
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
You paid for a burglar alarm did you not (if it came with the house when you bought it, that counts as a yes, it was part of the deal you paid for
Why is this any different? Why is intellectual property, that could potentially cost you thousands if it's infringed, any different than physical property that also cost money?
The music and movie industries spend millions of pounds a year in an attempt to protect their copyright, why should photographers not have to? What makes us any better than them?
Nothing makes us better than them :shrug: But what we are talking about is commercial organizations (not some snotty little scrote that knows nothing better) who want to gain from others work, or at the very least don't want to pay for it! ... How about this as the way forward:
THEY pay an organization to find if the image has copyright and put the onus on them to do the right thing
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John Aldred
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Sadly, that's not how the world works.
I agree, but it should! .. If everyone gives in? .... then what? ....
- Messages
- 5,092
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
That sounds like a completely ludicrous system. To be safe from being sued I'd have to be paying to register new work at least 3 or 4 times a week. Costing me a bloody fortune. If copyright is mine, why should I have to pay for a certificate to 'prove' it.
How having billions of unprotected works out there helps anyone, except businesses looking for a free ride, I don't see..
How having billions of unprotected works out there helps anyone, except businesses looking for a free ride, I don't see..
- Messages
- 2,097
- Edit My Images
- No
Thats not how it works though. You own the copyright as soon as the work is created. You don't need to register, its a sort of fail safe. If you self publish it is near enough a requirement to protect your rights.
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John Aldred
- Edit My Images
- No
Are you stupid? To be safe from being sued? I'm talking about YOU being able to recover costs from OTHER PEOPLE who STEAL YOUR WORK.
- Messages
- 2,097
- Edit My Images
- No