New Copyright Law in the UK

WillNicholls said:
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.
Click to expand...

Petitions with much much more than 100k have been completely ignored. In fact, can anyone point me toward any petition that has influenced govt policy at all? I can't think of any, and I've signed up to several over the last few years.
 
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...

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/terms-and-conditions

doesn't mention anything about naming the 'act of parliament' in the guidelines either.
 
tiler65 said:
where does that one mention the 'Act of P'
Click to expand...

It doesn't, but neither does the one being pushed in this thread. I was using it as an example, highlighting similar petitions already existing and possibility of one of them being rejected because of a duplicate.

The petition I linked to was started before the one being pushed in this thread. What one gets flung out I wonder.

What was your point?
 
Johnd2000 said:
Petitions with much much more than 100k have been completely ignored. In fact, can anyone point me toward any petition that has influenced govt policy at all? I can't think of any, and I've signed up to several over the last few years.
Click to expand...

The Gurkhas' petition, 2007/8.
 
Johnd2000 said:
Petitions with much much more than 100k have been completely ignored. In fact, can anyone point me toward any petition that has influenced govt policy at all? I can't think of any, and I've signed up to several over the last few years.
Click to expand...

Actually they won't be ignored...they will be discussed as to whether it is needed for further discussion or a possible debate.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-business-committee/e-petitions-/#jump-link-1

And to further squash your mis-information

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19266497
 
Last edited:
tiler65 said:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/terms-and-conditions

doesn't mention anything about naming the 'act of parliament' in the guidelines either.
Click to expand...

My point was that I don't think it is specific enough. When you see petitions being rejected over the years for the likes of

"It did not have a clear statement explaining what action you want the government to take."

"There is already an e-petition about this issue."

I'd say it would have probably paid better to be more specific. What are we at now, 1792 names. Lets hope it's not a waste.
 
Last edited:
WillNicholls said:
Why do some people always look for the negatives in everything...


I thought it was specific but obviously not. I want them to abort the plans, so said so
Click to expand...

Because they are week and have no strength.If everyone were like them we would all be speaking German now.:LOL:
 
Has anybody actually read the act we are all discussing?

It's here - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2012-2013/0045/2013045.pdf (yes, there was a link earlier in this thread. Yes, it really is one of those omnibus acts that try to cover a lot of stuff that's vaguely related. This has worked well in the US for slipping in nasty stuff into bills that no right thinking person would object to.) You want part 6 ominously entitled "miscellaneous and general".

I really can't make head or tail of it.

It seems to allow an unspecified (presumably non existant) body to make decisions and grant licenses. It doesn't discuss what the mechanism would be for this, nor does it discuss how license fees would be derived - except that the "body" would make some cash on the deal.

It also says that the crown and parliament are exempt (natch), but if a work is orphaned, how could you know it was actually by Her Maj anyway?

There is also mention of some kind of register but no clue what this would be, where it would be kept or how you would check or add to it.

In fact the words "back of a fag packet" come to mind.

Oh and there's a bit that seems to say that the penalties for infringement won't be limited by some act or other.

But don't worry - Lord Marland reckons none of this breaches your Human Rights.

I wonder what they are really up to?
 
The whole point of the act is the glorious idea of making life easier for business, copyright gets dragged into it because companies 'feel' that the current way copyright works is somehow holding them back. They've (business and the gov't) decided that there must be tons of IP out there that the originator wouldn't mind companies making money from.

So this is a kludge to try to make that possible. The fact that it started to remove a layer of bureaucracy and will create one (at least) appears to be lost on them. We'll end up with a licensing body, which brings us into line with the US.

Oddly the US system is technically stronger than International law for protecting copyright owners who use it, the downside is it has already proved to make a mockery of the Berne Convention when it comes to the rights of foreigners:shake:. There's been at least one case where a US infringer has had their rights upheld because a foreign artist hadn't registered copyright of their work with the US copyright office:wacky:.
 
Road pricing. That was another that stopped government in its tracks.

BJP have just tweeted Will's petition (y)
 
Some of you, at around the start of the thread, on page one, talked about "stripping the EXIF" metafiles from the photo.

Although I'm not 100% clear on this EXIF file, but surely it makes no different if the EXIF file had been stripped away or left there considering that..

The EXIF file itself keeps records of date and time the photo was taken, what camera was used, what settings such as ISO, shutter speed, which lens, if a zoom lens, then which focus lenght, and so on and on and on...

But the EXIF files do not hold information about the photographer, it don't record the photographer's name and address.

So if you own (say as example) a Nikon D3 and took a photo, post it on the Internet, then someone else copied your work, and pass it off as their own, then you track this person down, so if yourself and that other person were to be facing a judge, you could ask the judge to check the EXIF file and see that a Nikon D3 was used to take the photo, you hold up a D3 and say "There! I have a D3 so I took it." How is that going to help prove the file is your work if the other person holds up another D3 and says "So do I."?

I assume since the EXIF files don't record the name of the photographer and is only a file that records camera's settings, is there a different in trying to strip away the EXIF if you hope to pass off the photo as your own?
 
Major Eazy said:
Some of you, at around the start of the thread, on page one, talked about "stripping the EXIF" metafiles from the photo.

Although I'm not 100% clear on this EXIF file, but surely it makes no different if the EXIF file had been stripped away or left there considering that..

The EXIF file itself keeps records of date and time the photo was taken, what camera was used, what settings such as ISO, shutter speed, which lens, if a zoom lens, then which focus lenght, and so on and on and on...

But the EXIF files do not hold information about the photographer, it don't record the photographer's name and address.

So if you own (say as example) a Nikon D3 and took a photo, post it on the Internet, then someone else copied your work, and pass it off as their own, then you track this person down, so if yourself and that other person were to be facing a judge, you could ask the judge to check the EXIF file and see that a Nikon D3 was used to take the photo, you hold up a D3 and say "There! I have a D3 so I took it." How is that going to help prove the file is your work if the other person holds up another D3 and says "So do I."?

I assume since the EXIF files don't record the name of the photographer and is only a file that records camera's settings, is there a different in trying to strip away the EXIF if you hope to pass off the photo as your own?
Click to expand...

My metadata has my name on it, in the EXIF file. It even states who the copyright belongs to.
 
Major Eazy said:
I assume since the EXIF files don't record the name of the photographer and is only a file that records camera's settings, is there a different in trying to strip away the EXIF if you hope to pass off the photo as your own?
Click to expand...

Standard metadata also includes the camera serial number. So if it were intact I could show it was MY D3 as opposed to any other. IIRC it also holds the lens serial number.

Also there's a user comment field which holds a web address and my phone number.

Those are at shutter fall. When I copy the pics to my computer it updates IPTC data with a lot more info. There are of course many opportunities for this to become detached either accidentally or otherwise.
 
Also, this is another reason why you should shoot in raw, and not give the raw files away if possible. Having the raw is like a digital negative and ultimate proof the original capture was yours.
And No one uploads raws to the web do they.
 
Last edited:
Dangleman said:
Also, this is another reason why you should shoot in raw, and not give the raw files away if possible. Having the raw is like a digital negative and ultimate proof the original capture was yours.
And No one uploads raws to the web do they.
Click to expand...

If I have understood the stop43 website then that may allow you to ultimately prove that you took the picture. But the financial damage could already be done. You will be entitled to a fee for the usage of your picture from "the registry", but the fee may be significantly less than you think your photo was worth(*). Also, you will have had no control over where or how your image was used. For example it could be a picture of your family used to advertise something to which you morally object.


(*) Let's be honest that should read the fee will be significantly less than you think your photo was worth
 
Dangleman said:
Having the raw is like a digital negative and ultimate proof the original capture was yours.
Click to expand...

Another method is to always use a very slight crop. i.e. just a few pixels away from the edge. then if there is any question of ownership, only you will have the full image. Anyone else claiming it as theirs will only have the slightly smaller version.


Steve.
 
Thinking about this a bit more, photographers, and unfortunately lawyers, could make a tidy sum from the extra infringements that might crop up if this ever gets through. If you're canny, you will always be able to prove an image is yours if you need to.

Reverse image search (google, tineye etc) will likely only get better and more powerful, so if someone develops a nice streamlined system, you could have a nice sideline in easily chasing up *****, sorry infringers, and make a nice little earner.
I view stock photography now as a nice little sideline earner, this could be the same. Positive thoughts?
 
JonathanRyan said:
I really can't make head or tail of it.

It seems to allow an unspecified (presumably non existant) body to make decisions and grant licenses. It doesn't discuss what the mechanism would be for this, nor does it discuss how license fees would be derived - except that the "body" would make some cash on the deal.

It also says that the crown and parliament are exempt (natch), but if a work is orphaned, how could you know it was actually by Her Maj anyway?

There is also mention of some kind of register but no clue what this would be, where it would be kept or how you would check or add to it.

In fact the words "back of a fag packet" come to mind.
Click to expand...


It's enabling legislation and as such must be primary legislation (an Act of Parliament).

The specifics will be in secondary legislation (that is, Statutory Instruments) within the bounds laid down by the Act.
 
milou said:
The Copyright Hub has been set up: http://www.copyrighthub.co.uk/About_the_Hub.html

For what it's worth, the UK isn’t first country in the world to implement such a law; Canada is the primary example who have been running a similar scheme since 1990. This scheme has only granted 266 applications since it began >> http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences-e.html
Click to expand...

Read the HUB's FAQ .....still a lot of 'Don't knows' on there especially when it comes down to your dosh.

I would hate for the UK creative creator to have to pay to have their work registered to an 'Administration' body - another good reason to stop this bill and have it changed.
 
There are fields of computer science that specialise in image recognition and I know of several small companies that have engines designed to cross reference visual databases. Most of these companies have previously sold into the policing markets. This will be a huge thing for them.

I expect you will see a new industry arise from this, firms offering an image search service and firms offering an image registry service, (if one is needed beyond publishing on Flickr), I presume that in a dispute, onus will be on the image owner to prove ownership and then on the image user to prove that due diligence was exercised in ascertaining the image was orphaned?
 
tiler65 said:
My metadata has my name on it, in the EXIF file. It even states who the copyright belongs to.
Click to expand...

That's great, but how? If it could be done, then I would like to know how do you get to do this trick?
 
JonathanRyan said:
Standard metadata also includes the camera serial number. So if it were intact I could show it was MY D3 as opposed to any other. IIRC it also holds the lens serial number.

Also there's a user comment field which holds a web address and my phone number.

Those are at shutter fall. When I copy the pics to my computer it updates IPTC data with a lot more info. There are of course many opportunities for this to become detached either accidentally or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Even a serial number?

Oh wow! That's great.

Now that you guys mention it could record photographer's name and camera's serial numbers, now I see the worries about stripping away the EXIF files.

Point taken.
 
Major Eazy said:
That's great, but how? If it could be done, then I would like to know how do you get to do this trick?
Click to expand...

its not hard - most (if not all) DSLRs have a setting for copyright info, which they add to the exif

FBEXIF.png
 
I am open to correction but my understanding is that protection is afforded to a person from the copyright holder if:

The image is on the orphan works register AND
He has obtained (and paid for ) a license from the orphan works licensing authority.

Otherwise it's business as usual for the copyright holder.

This means if no license has been obtained from the authority the copyright holder can take action for breach of copyright no matter how much due diligence has been undertaken and whether or not the image is on the orphan works register.

I have no doubt the legislation will be passed and for those who may be effected I think the best way forward is to try to influence the drafting to ensure the best "bad scenario".

Some matters which I think should be addressed:-

Enforcement : When an image hits the orphan's register there will be a big red flashing light over it - "The copyright holder is really hard to find". Dare I say that the less scrupulous may infer that if they're going to take images without payment these would be good candidates.
The licensing authority should have a duty to be vigilant and aware of copyright holders' rights and a pro-active enforcement section should be required.

Pricing: There should be some form of index based on the average of the better agencies. There will be support for this from the agencies as they will not want to be undercut.

Cross Cutting: Imagine the copyright holder has entered into an exclusive territorial license. The orphan works agency subsequently licenses into that territory. The original licensee comes back to the copyright holder seeking damages. There should be a "hold harmless" provision which protects the copyright holder where the agency licence cuts across a holder's licence.

No Selling on: All of the profits of an image should accrue to the orphan works agency and ultimately to the author if found. There should be no licenses granted which allow sub licensing. I believe that this is intended to be the case.

Unallocated Funds: Perhaps there should be a provision that a proportion of unclaimed funds should after a suitable period be given to conservancy/educational establishments in the appropriate sphere. Alternatively or in addition a bonus payment could be made to those copyright holders who were paid out on the period.

Inappropriate Use: I would assume that licenses would not be granted where the intended use was indecent, discriminatory, etc. However in addition licenses should not be granted where the intended use is to make fun of or show in bad light any identifiable person.

Sorry about the length of this post but I just started writing and couldn't stop :)
 
Unfortunately the copyright part of the bill is a bit of a cover for the main story, so will not get much coverage.

The government's addition of a paragraph after the committee stage and during a late night final reading are sraggering. Employer liability for compensation for serious injury or death has been massively altered. Now the person seeking compensation must prove that not only did an accident occur, but that the employer were aware that the accident could occur due to a fault of their making. Plus you can only have £900 legal aid.
 
They are discussing this on another forum and a very good point was made.

A company wants to use my image and does a diligent search, but can not find who owns the copyright. So they then pay the fee to the independent body who holds the money until I the copyright holder comes along and ask for the cash.

Now if the company could not find me after doing a search, how do I find if they have used my image.

A nice pot of money paid in with little chance of it ever going out to the copyright holder.
 
Last edited:
acetone said:
They are discussing this on another forum and a very good point was made.

A company wants to use my image and does a diligent search, but can not find who owns the copyright. So they then pay the fee to the independent body who holds the money until I the copyright holder comes along and ask for the cash.

Now if the company could not find me after doing a search, how do I find if they have used my image.

A nice pot of money paid in with little chance of it ever going out to the copyright holder.
Click to expand...

I guess every now and then you could do an image search on the independents body database for any use of that image, bit like Google reverse image search but just on their own database of used images.

Just a guess mind you :)
 
The Canadian experience over nearly 25 years is about a dozen licenses on average issued each year. Most of these are for musical, literary, or film works with very few photographs.

You could easily search the whole 20 odd year database of licenses manually.

If somebody wants to rip off your image why would he go to the time and cost of stripping metadata, creating evidence of due diligence, submitting the image for scrutiny and validation with the danger of being found out just to have it registered as an orphan work ? Unless he pays a license fee, which is what he is trying to avoid, he will not be protected in any case. He just isn't going to do it and you're in exactly the same position as now.
 
That presuming that the independent body will post every image used online.

We mustn't think that the company using my image will have it online, it may only be used In print media that I may never see.
 
acetone said:
We mustn't think that the company using my image will have it online, it may only be used In print media that I may never see.
Click to expand...

Being realistic, how often will that happen? I don't upload hi res now, and I know you can make an ok print from a 900 pxl file, but that not going to be good enough for say a print advert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top