New Copyright Law in the UK

If this gets through, if, I can't see it being much worse than it is now to be honest.

What's really needed here is new tech, as we are simply on a downward spiralling fight. The boffins and geeks need to pull their fingers out, and come up with a new way to embed copyright data into images, or some other magic dust. Can't be that hard surely :-)
 
Am I missing something here?

A creators copyright is based on their role as the creator - any EXIF/watermarking is irrelevant - they still have copyright over the image.

Therefore if the EXIF is stripped and the watermark removed by someone trying to create an orphan- these actions actually have nothing to do with the status of the work - copyright still exists as it always has done. No EXIF does not an orphan make.

So if you see one of your images being used with the claim that it's an orphan you would still assert your copyright just as you would do now and take action against those infringing your copyright - just as you would do now. Even if someone claims to have "searched diligently" - your ability to show copyright renders their claim to use of an orphan image null and void.

And in law ignorance has never been a defence - so the "I thought it was OK" defence holds no more water than it does now.......

If anything the OPTION to register your work might be seen as an additional protection to the copyright owner should you decide to go that route.
 
if this is the case, then surely deliberately stripping exif and copyright data from a photo is feeding the potential for image mis-use.
or am I being too optimistic?
 
can I also just throw in this reference
original.jpg
 
Steve Smith said:
Which in English law is no defence.

EDIT: Chris already stated that... plus lots of other sensible stuff.


Steve.
Click to expand...

ignorance of the law is no defence but how can you prove that reasonably that someone didn't know something or acted with enough diligence to find the information
 
ukaskew said:
Interesting stuff, with regards to a diligent search I was intrigued if I could easily trace the owner of an image I've completely lost control of (to the point of it being for sale across the world on canvases, used on album covers, used on TV screens for product shots etc, all without me earning a penny from it)

This one, if anyone is interested: http://SPAM/bmc99ws

It took me about 20 seconds to find a link to the Flickr account of who is clearly the owner of the shot (me), and also ironically to my username on Talk Photography.
Click to expand...

The diligent part is what would be tested. Remember that search results could easily be significantly different for different people. I don't get your 2 'obvious' links until pages 8 and 9. You are happy that 20 seconds and page 5 is good for you but I had to be a bit more diligent and dig deeper. I only clicked through each of the preceding pages because I knew what I was looking for.
 
DizMatt said:
ignorance of the law is no defence but how can you prove that reasonably that someone didn't know something or acted with enough diligence to find the information
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter because once you find that someone is using your image you can bill them for it. They don't get to carry on using it as if nothing has happened.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
It doesn't matter because once you find that someone is using your image you can bill them for it. They don't get to carry on using it as if nothing has happened.

Steve.
Click to expand...

I believed the key point of the new law is that if an infringer can claim 'due dilligence' they can get away without paying though. Currently the law has an assumption of all works having an owner, so an image (or music) thief is automatically assumed guilty, so even if they stop using a work they can be charged for historical use.

Under the new law, we introduce the concept that unless a copyright owner has taken steps to assert copyright, the work doesnt have an owner, so until found in breach, the thief has free use. Thats a sea change IMO.
 
Phil V said:
I believed the key point of the new law is that if an infringer can claim 'due dilligence' they can get away without paying though. Currently the law has an assumption of all works having an owner, so an image (or music) thief is automatically assumed guilty, so even if they stop using a work they can be charged for historical use.

Under the new law, we introduce the concept that unless a copyright owner has taken steps to assert copyright, the work doesnt have an owner, so until found in breach, the thief has free use. Thats a sea change IMO.
Click to expand...

Do you know if this effects the music industry too? Eg. tracks online ?
 
Krisstiffer said:
Am I missing something here?

A creators copyright is based on their role as the creator - any EXIF/watermarking is irrelevant - they still have copyright over the image.

Therefore if the EXIF is stripped and the watermark removed by someone trying to create an orphan- these actions actually have nothing to do with the status of the work - copyright still exists as it always has done. No EXIF does not an orphan make.

So if you see one of your images being used with the claim that it's an orphan you would still assert your copyright just as you would do now and take action against those infringing your copyright - just as you would do now. Even if someone claims to have "searched diligently" - your ability to show copyright renders their claim to use of an orphan image null and void.

And in law ignorance has never been a defence - so the "I thought it was OK" defence holds no more water than it does now.......

If anything the OPTION to register your work might be seen as an additional protection to the copyright owner should you decide to go that route.
Click to expand...

Yup, you are missing the entire point of the legislation.

If you use an 'orphan work' (having carried out due diligence) the copyright holder has absolutely no recourse against you if/when they discover its use. More to the point, if you have registered as a Hub you can then charge third parties for its use.
 
WillNicholls said:
Do you know if this effects the music industry too? Eg. tracks online ?
Click to expand...

The law isn't aimed at photographers - it's all IP, writing, music, software, graphics, photography, video; although I can't see how music can easily become 'orphaned' but I'm not an expert on the music industry.
 
Music works in a different way to images. If you publish an album and a radio station (for example) wants to play a track, they just play it and pay the royalty to MCPS/PRS and eventually they will send you your 0.00001p share of the royalty.

They don't have to ask your permission to play your track on their programme.


Steve,
 
Phil V said:
The law isn't aimed at photographers - it's all IP, writing, music, software, graphics, photography, video; although I can't see how music can easily become 'orphaned' but I'm not an expert on the music industry.
Click to expand...

It will never have big musicians becoming orphaned.

Surely this will be aborted when they finalise the details? That's ridiculous!
 
As I understand it :-

A separate independent body will have to verify the due diligence.
A register will be kept of all works which are subject to due diligence and are still awaiting verification.
There will also be a register of works which have been verified and are therefore "orphans".
A payment will have to be made for use of the orphan work.
The payment will be held on account of any eventual claims by the copyright holder.
Moral rights will be deemed to have been asserted by the copyright holder of all orphan works.

I don't know what happens to the unclaimed balances which are bound to accumulate.

I really don't know what to make of it. It will not effect me as I have never received any income from my hobby and am unlikely to given the standard of my work :)

I was at a loss to understand what were the specific benefits of such a scheme. There must be trillions of non orphaned works to choose from; why would you want to use an orpahed work. However there are for example film and photograph archives where the originals are deteriorating and a copy can't be made because the copyright holder cannot be identified. This still seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
 
zednini said:
As I understand it :-

A separate independent body will have to verify the due diligence.
A register will be kept of all works which are subject to due diligence and are still awaiting verification.
There will also be a register of works which have been verified and are therefore "orphans".
A payment will have to be made for use of the orphan work.
The payment will be held on account of any eventual claims by the copyright holder.
Moral rights will be deemed to have been asserted by the copyright holder of all orphan works.

<b>I don't know what happens to the unclaimed balances which are bound to accumulate.</b>

I really don't know what to make of it. It will not effect me as I have never received any income from my hobby and am unlikely to given the standard of my work :)

I was at a loss to understand what were the specific benefits of such a scheme. There must be trillions of non orphaned works to choose from; why would you want to use an orpahed work. However there are for example film and photograph archives where the originals are deteriorating and a copy can't be made because the copyright holder cannot be identified. This still seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Click to expand...


Just another way for the government to make use of its money rake.
 
As an artist paintings don't have an EXIF though images of them on the web may possibly have one. However copyright automatically obtains to me on creation of the work, stopping some toerag slicing the signature off and making prints and selling them on eBay or whatever, is going to be compromised under this legislation as I understand it. No doubt some Government old boy appointed QUANGO will offer registration of images for a fee!
 
zednini said:
As I understand it :-

A separate independent body will have to verify the due diligence.
A register will be kept of all works which are subject to due diligence and are still awaiting verification.
There will also be a register of works which have been verified and are therefore "orphans".
A payment will have to be made for use of the orphan work.
The payment will be held on account of any eventual claims by the copyright holder.
Moral rights will be deemed to have been asserted by the copyright holder of all orphan works.
Click to expand...

After reading the actual bill this is the closest I've seen to what is encapsulated in it.
A work can only be deemed "orphan" if it has been licensed as such by the regulatory bodies created by the act. Finding an image on the web with no obvious copyright information does not automatically infer orphan status - indeed if it is not acquired via one of the hubs under licence then intact copyright is the default status.
So anyone using an image without a licence is, from my reading, subject to existing copyright rules and regs unless they can show such a licence exists and they are entitled to use it under that said licence.
If an image has been granted licence as an orphan and the copyright owner subsequently asserts copyright then the orphan status is revoked by the licencing body and compensation paid based on the charges made by the hub for use of the image (I'm not naive so am sceptical as to how those equate to commercial rates).
But either as a licenced or unlicenced image the original copyright holder still has redress.

It's paragraphs 65 to 69 in the bill http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2012-2013/0045/2013045.pdf
 
artyman said:
stopping some toerag slicing the signature off and making prints and selling them on eBay or whatever, is going to be compromised under this legislation as I understand it.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it's any different to the current arrangement.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I don't see how it's any different to the current arrangement.


Steve.
Click to expand...

The difference is, in the current state you, as a photographer or creator of the work, can sue/bill them for copyright infringement for the use of your photograph.
Under the new law it seems that you won't be able to do this. Sure you could get them to stop using your work but you can't bill them or sue them because they can claim they couldn't find you to ask for your permission.

I've signed the petition and passed it around facebook. As a videographer and a photographer this has a lot of impact for me.
 
graphilly said:
I thought you had to layout directly, in the petition, to the Government, what you want them to do. It looks like it has been drawn up at the last minute, in a rush and really summarises the issue. I'd be surprised if that petition actually makes it past some senior admins desk.
Click to expand...

Well it has been approved by them and it states that it wants them to abort the plans? Those that don't get approved are on the rejected list on the site and there's reasons why such as not saying what you want them to do.
 
AESamuel said:
The difference is, in the current state you, as a photographer or creator of the work, can sue/bill them for copyright infringement for the use of your photograph.
Under the new law it seems that you won't be able to do this. Sure you could get them to stop using your work but you can't bill them or sue them because they can claim they couldn't find you to ask for your permission.

I've signed the petition and passed it around facebook. As a videographer and a photographer this has a lot of impact for me.
Click to expand...

That is correct.What has been done is that the BURDEN OF PROOF has been removed from the infrineger and now put onto the copyright holder.That is a disaster for photographers.The deceptive "BLIND" with this law is "Oh you will be all right they have to show due diligence".BUT who decides if they have exercised due diligence.

At present I just issue a County Court summons and the infringer has to prove he had my permission to publish,which he can not do.When this comes into effect I will have to prove that the infringer was not diligent.This is an absolute con and the people who have drafted this legislation know it.GET THE PETITION SIGN AND WRITE TO YOUR MP.:thumbs:
 
WillNicholls said:
Well it has been approved by them and it states that it wants them to abort the plans? Those that don't get approved are on the rejected list on the site and there's reasons why such as not saying what you want them to do.
Click to expand...

The initial approval doesn't necessarily mean that it will be accepted as a petition though does it. Unless they have told you differently?

This is not the only open petition on the subject it would appear. They only allow 1 at a time, so how come there are more than 1 currently running? There is still room for being added to the rejected pile I think.

Abort what plans, specifically? I think it is too brief. It doesn't even mention the act that it pertains too.
 
Last edited:
graphilly said:
The initial approval doesn't necessarily mean that it will be accepted as a petition though does it. Unless they have told you differently?

This is not the only open petition on the subject it would appear. They only allow 1 at a time, so how come there are more than 1 currently running? There is still room for being added to the rejected pile I think.

Abort what plans, specifically? I think it is too brief. It doesn't even mention the act that it pertains too.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should point to the other petitions on the subject.
 
graphilly said:
The initial approval doesn't necessarily mean that it will be accepted as a petition though does it. Unless they have told you differently?

This is not the only open petition on the subject it would appear. They only allow 1 at a time, so how come there are more than 1 currently running? There is still room for being added to the rejected pile I think.

Abort what plans, specifically? I think it is too brief. It doesn't even mention the act that it pertains too.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not an experienced petition writer. But if it gets to 100k I think they can't just say oh the wording is slightly wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top