New Copyright Law in the UK

[acetone]

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

It'll be good enough for a small image in a magazine advertisement for example. It may only be used as a 2 x 1 inch picture or even smaller, but if that's in a 500,000 international weekly print run for the next 12 months, I'd want a bob or two.

 

[boyfalldown]

It'll be good enough for a small image in a magazine advertisement for example. It may only be used as a 2 x 1 inch picture or even smaller, but if that's in a 500,000 international weekly print run for the next 12 months, I'd want a bob or two.

I'm still far from convinced that'd ever happen. If your paying for something like that advertising run then you're going to want that ad to be spot on, you're not going to compromise it for the sake of what will be (compared to the cost of running the ad) a few quid. There's just too many compromises to be made with a photo pulled from the net

 

[Lindsay D]

As Mark mentioned, let's hope the image bank of the 'regulatory body' will be public (as in will show thumbnails of all the images in the bank with their reference number emblazoned across them) and searchable by genre etc, then it will be quite easy for any of us to check periodically to see if any of our images have been listed.

I can see many photographers cutting back on the availability of hi res discs if this new venture gets going.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Response from UK Intellectual Property Office:-

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 –Your photos and you

Myth – the provisions remove the automatic right to copyright for owners of photos posted online
Fact - The powers do not remove copyright for photographs or any other works subject to copyright.

Myth – anyone can use a photo they have found on the internet as an “orphan” if they cannot find the copyright owner after a search
Fact – A licence must be obtained to use a work as an “orphan”. This will require the applicant to undertake a diligent search, which will then need to be verified by the independent authorising body which the Government will appoint before a work can be used.

Myth – works will have their metadata stripped and be licensed en masse as orphans under the Extended Collective Licensing provisions
Fact – the Orphan Works scheme and Extended Collective Licensing (ECL) are separate and the orphan works scheme is about licensing of individual works.The Government will have no power to impose ECL on a sector, and the safeguards included in the scheme mean that ECL is only likely to be an option where there is strong existing support for collective licensing. Any rights holder who is worried about how their work could be used under an ECL scheme will always retain the ability to opt out.
It is unlikely that ECL will be an option for photography where there is a strong tradition of direct licensing: there is no collecting society for photographers in the UK, so no application for an ECL is feasible at present.

Myth – anyone will be able to use my photos for free if they cannot find who owns them?
Fact – If a work is licensed following the verification of the diligent search, there will be a licence fee payable up-front for its use. The fee will be set at the going rate.

Myth – anyone can use my photos without my permission
Fact – Anyone wishing to use a work as an orphan must first undertake a diligent search for the rights-holder which is then verified with permission to use the work granted by the Government appointed independent authorising body. If the work is not genuinely orphan then the rights-holder should be found, if the search is not properly diligent, no licence will be issued.

Myth – the Act is the Instagram Act
Fact – Given the steps that must be taken before an orphan work can be copied, such as the diligent search, verification of the search and payment of a going rate fee, it is unlikely that the scheme will be attractive in circumstances where a substitute photograph is available. The rate payable for an orphan work will not undercut non-orphans.

Myth – a company can take my work and then sub-license it without my knowledge, approval or any payment
Fact – The licences to use an orphan work will not allow sub-licensing.

Myth – the stripping of metadata creates an orphan work
Fact – the absence or removal of metadata does not in itself make a work “orphan” or allow its use under the orphan works scheme

Myth – I will have to register my photos to claim copyright
Fact – Copyright will continue to be automatic and there is no need to register a work in order for it to enjoy copyright protection.

Myth – the UK is doing something radical and unprecedented with the Orphan Works powers
Fact – Other jurisdictions already allow the use of orphan works. The UK powers are largely based on what happens in Canada – which has been licensing orphan works since 1990.

 

[Gr8Shot]

Just tried reading the new legislation.......gave up.

 

[Phil V]

Response from UK Intellectual Property Office:-

So
As predicted - the sky isn't falling.

 

[treeman]

So
As predicted - the sky isn't falling.

Amen to that

Now you all can carry on squabbling about Adobes CC instead.

 

[JonathanRyan]

So
As predicted - the sky isn't falling.

Interesting their FAQ doesn't appear to bear any relation to what the act actually says. I can see how people might be confused.

 

[Phil V]

Interesting their FAQ doesn't appear to bear any relation to what the act actually says. I can see how people might be confused.

The act doesn't give any detail at all, it was suggested by some that we were heading towards the Canadian model for Orphan works, but the act talks about licensing authorities without making a distinction between registration systems.

If you re-read the act having read the mythbuster it makes much more sense.

 

[JonathanRyan]

The act doesn't give any detail at all, it was suggested by some that we were heading towards the Canadian model for Orphan works, but the act talks about licensing authorities without making a distinction between registration systems.

If you re-read the act having read the mythbuster it makes much more sense.

True. And if that's right then it may be a good thing - basically it stops people using stuff for free because they say it's too hard to find who owns it. Done right it may actually be good for copyright holders since it may cost less to license a copyright image than pay the orphan body.

Two things bother me:

1. When the government grants itself wide powers and then says "trust us" it seldom ends well. I realise now that we don't have the full text of the proposed act yet but there are lots of unanswered questions. I've always said the CD&P act is remarkably clear and fair so it's possible that after consultation the final act will be A Good Thing® but really who knows since the FAQs aren't law just a junior official's understanding of it.

2. If these really are orphan works and it really is all about licensing them and collecting the money then who gets the money? Is this basically a tax on creativity?

If I buy a box of old slides then right now I can POSSIBLY scan them and do what I want (it depends how long the photographer has been dead and probably there's no way to know). Come the revolution, presumably I'll pay a licensing fee which will never be collected by the photographer. I can see how that benefits the treasury - but not really anybody else. [BTW clearing up the status of old slides is often quoted as a benefit of this act - I know, weird or what?]

 

[London Headshots]

My girlfriend is an intellectual property solicitor, and she doesn't see what there is to worry about, but I was at a friend of hers on Monday, and he is also an intellectual property solicitor, and he said it's a very sinister act and creatives have every right to be alarmed.

So it seems even the experts can't decide whether it's a bad thing or not.

Which, by default, makes it a bad thing.

 

[Phil V]

...

2. If these really are orphan works and it really is all about licensing them and collecting the money then who gets the money? Is this basically a tax on creativity?
...

My understanding is that the income creates a pool, which IP owners would be compensated from should they discover someone has wrongly used their work as 'orphaned'. Although obviously, there'll be some money for the treasury and profit for the licensing body.

 

[big soft moose]

lawyers make their living by arguing with each other about interpretation- of course they can't all agree.

I'd suspect that many lawyers secretly rubbing their hamnds at the thought of all the lawsuits which might result from people on either side interpretuing the act differently, not to mention all the consult fees for advising on what it means.

If the law was simple, clear cut, and easily interpretable by the layman, all the lawyers would be out of a job

 

[London Headshots]

lawyers make their living by arguing with each other about interpretation- of course they can't all agree.

I'd suspect that many lawyers secretly rubbing their hamnds at the thought of all the lawsuits which might result from people on either side interpretuing the act differently, not to mention all the consult fees for advising on what it means.

If the law was simple, clear cut, and easily interpretable by the layman, all the lawyers would be out of a job

Well, that's not what being a lawyer is about. They don't argue for a living at all, especially in intellectual property. IP is about reaching an accord, and it's not got their by arguing. It's dull as dishwater.

Also, most lawyers definitely do not relish the idea of a bunch of extra work. Lawyers aren't hitting the clock and earning themselves money to argue. You might be thinking of partners.

 

[big soft moose]

Well, that's not what being a lawyer is about. They don't argue for a living at all, especially in intellectual property. IP is about reaching an accord, and it's not got their by arguing. It's dull as dishwater.

Also, most lawyers definitely do not relish the idea of a bunch of extra work. Lawyers aren't hitting the clock and earning themselves money to argue. You might be thinking of partners.

yeah but partners pay lawyers salaries - and not small ones at that - and they do that out of the profits of their staff hitting the clock.

how often on here have we seen people asking for advice about IP /copyright- and the basic resolution of if you want legal advice ask a lawyer (at about £50 for 15 minutes).

At the bottom line if the law was totally simple and easy to understand why would anyone use a lawyer for anything ? ergo they have a vested interest in the law being complex and hard to interpret

 

[London Headshots]

Well, again, it depends on what kind of lawyers we're talking about. A lot of intellectual property lawyers are in house, so there is no clock hitting. Also, staff aren't paid out of profit.

This isn't about partners, you said lawyers will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of this law causing problems, when the truth is that they won't, because lawyers, by a large margin, definitely do not want more work, especially in areas of law that are difficult to interpret. It doesn't change their income either way.

 

[big soft moose]

Also, staff aren't paid out of profit.

you what ? - of course they are , if the business (of any description) isnt making any money then salaries and jobs get cut , if the business is doing really well then it expands and jobs get created (or payrises/bonuses given)

okay so the salary bill comes off before the net profit of the activity is calculated - but its still being met by the gross profits of the activity

It doesn't change their income either way.

of course it does - as I said above no income very quickly equals no jobs, if the government passed an act that vastly simplified IP to the point where anyone could understand and enforce it, then their companies wouldnt need legal experts in IP in house and thus a lot of IP lawyers would be on the dole which would vastly change their income

so they have a vested interest in that not happening and the law remaining sufficiently complex that they are needed to interpret it

Also when a tog needs to enforce his copyright and prove in court that his wasnt an orphan work , he's going to go to a lawyer - and I've never encountered anyone who has had a solicitor say " sorry mate we're too busy, we don't want you money"

 

[Steve Smith]

Also, staff aren't paid out of profit.

The staff of any business are paid by the customers. There is no other input of money to a company.


Steve.

 

[London Headshots]

you what ? - of course they are , if the business (of any description) isnt making any money then salaries and jobs get cut , if the business is doing really well then it expands and jobs get created (or payrises/bonuses given)

okay so the salary bill comes off before the net profit of the activity is calculated - but its still being met by the gross profits of the activity



of course it does - as I said above no income very quickly equals no jobs, if the government passed an act that vastly simplified IP to the point where anyone could understand and enforce it, then their companies wouldnt need legal experts in IP in house and thus a lot of IP lawyers would be on the dole which would vastly change their income

so they have a vested interest in that not happening and the law remaining sufficiently complex that they are needed to interpret it

Also when a tog needs to enforce his copyright and prove in court that his wasnt an orphan work , he's going to go to a lawyer - and I've never encountered anyone who has had a solicitor say " sorry mate we're too busy, we don't want you money"

Haha, god, the lengths people will go to avoid admitting they were conjecturing about a subject they knew nothing about.

If I keep going, will you eventually refine your point to a singularity?

 

[London Headshots]

The staff of any business are paid by the customers. There is no other input of money to a company.


Steve.

*yawn*

Companies do not pay their staff out of profits. Staff pay is included in operating costs. Companies operating on a loss still pay their staff.

 

[Steve Smith]

Companies operating on a loss still pay their staff.

But not for long.


Steve.

 

[big soft moose]

*yawn*

Companies do not pay their staff out of profits. Staff pay is included in operating costs. Companies operating on a loss still pay their staff.

where do you think the money to pay the staff comes from ? (okay so you can borrow and such, but only in the short term, and only if you have assets or income to borrow against)

Even a company operating at a loss is still making taking money from its customers - its just spending more than its taking.

a company with no customers isnt just operating at a loss , its completely flipping morribund , and bound for insolvency

 

[big soft moose]

Haha, god, the lengths people will go to avoid admitting they were conjecturing about a subject they knew nothing about.

Just because your girlfreind is a solicitor doesnt make you the fount of all knowledge on the legal proffesion - unless you are now going to claim to be an expert in the law, as well as in personal training, health and who knows who else.

I went out with a nurse once, it doesnt make me qualified to talk with authority about brain surgery.

You are entitled to your opinion, but equally I am entitled to mine that many in the legal proffesion will welcome increased custom from this act - your partner may not be one of those that does , but do you honestly claim to know the motivations and opinions of every IP lawyer in the country ?

Perhaps we should agree to differ and return to the topic of the OP before this thread spirals downwards to locksville in a scrivenesque flurry of pedantry hairsplitting and semantics

 

[London Headshots]

But not for long.


Steve.

Quick, Steve, get the last word in, it's as good as being right!

 

[London Headshots]

Just because your girlfreind is a solicitor doesnt make you the fount of all knowledge on the legal proffesion - unless you are now going to claim to be an expert in the law, as well as in personal training, health and who knows who else.

I went out with a nurse once, it doesnt make me qualified to talk with authority about brain surgery.

You are entitled to your opinion, but equally I am entitled to mine that many in the legal proffesion will welcome increased custom from this act - your partner may not be one of those that does , but do you honestly claim to know the motivations and opinions of every IP lawyer in the country ?

Nurses aren't brain surgeons. Just accept that you don't really know what you're talking about. It's not going to kill anyone.

 

[WillNicholls]

So
As predicted - the sky isn't falling.

No one has made the point that what if your orphaned image is used to support something you do not wish to be backing.

 

[big soft moose]

No one has made the point that what if your orphaned image is used to support something you do not wish to be backing.

assming the image wasnt legitimately orphaned ( Ie that they hadnt made a serious effort to find out who the owner was) you could issue a cease and desist (IMO obviously)

If the image was legitimately orphaned I'd suspect that it would be just tough - you should have embedded your copyright/contact info in the exif and watermark.

But to be honest how often is this likely to happen - theres a limited usage anyone can make of a 600x800 pix shot anyway - its not going to wind up on a bill board or print campaign etc

 

[big soft moose]

Nurses aren't brain surgeons. Just accept that you don't really know what you're talking about. It's not going to kill anyone.

Oh FFS don't be so flipping literal ( The nurse I went out with was a specialist in the feild of nursing assiciated with neurosurgery aftercare hence why I gave that example) but if it'll stop this stupid pedantry - okay I went out with a nurse once - that doesnt make me an authority on nursing issues , Better ? :bang:

Maybe you could accept that you don't really know the thoughts and dreams of every single IP lawyer in the UK ? Unless of course you do through some magical psychic process

Why is it so hard for you to accept that someone else can legitimately hold a differing opinion from yours without categorically being wrong ?

 

[DemiLion]

But not for long.

Steve.

Have you heard of a tiny little company called Starbucks?

 

[London Headshots]

Oh FFS don't be so flipping literal ( The nurse I went out with was a specialist in the feild of nursing assiciated with neurosurgery aftercare hence why I gave that example) but if it'll stop this stupid pedantry - okay I went out with a nurse once - that doesnt make me an authority on nursing issues , Better ? :bang:

Maybe you could accept that you don't really know the thoughts and dreams of every single IP lawyer in the UK ? Unless of course you do through some magical psychic process

Why is it so hard for you to accept that someone else can legitimately hold a differing opinion from yours without categorically being wrong ?

It's OK to be wrong, bro. Don't fight it.

Indeed vvvvvvv

 

[big soft moose]

Quick, Steve, get the last word in, it's as good as being right!

It's OK to be wrong, bro. Don't fight it.

ohh the irony

 

[kelack]

Pack it in the pair of you. We are a little fed up of following you both round the forum following up rtm's.

 

[eddo123]

Afraid to say, I posted about this possibly happening last summer and got told I didn't know what I was on about and that the government would never do something like that. Turns out I was right, and the people on this forum that told me that are now eating their hats. Either way you should have all signed the petition flying around with regard to it.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49422

 

[big soft moose]

not really - as phil said the sky isnt actually falling

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 –Your photos and you

Myth – the provisions remove the automatic right to copyright for owners of photos posted online
Fact - The powers do not remove copyright for photographs or any other works subject to copyright.

Myth – anyone can use a photo they have found on the internet as an “orphan” if they cannot find the copyright owner after a search
Fact – A licence must be obtained to use a work as an “orphan”. This will require the applicant to undertake a diligent search, which will then need to be verified by the independent authorising body which the Government will appoint before a work can be used.

Myth – works will have their metadata stripped and be licensed en masse as orphans under the Extended Collective Licensing provisions
Fact – the Orphan Works scheme and Extended Collective Licensing (ECL) are separate and the orphan works scheme is about licensing of individual works.The Government will have no power to impose ECL on a sector, and the safeguards included in the scheme mean that ECL is only likely to be an option where there is strong existing support for collective licensing. Any rights holder who is worried about how their work could be used under an ECL scheme will always retain the ability to opt out.
It is unlikely that ECL will be an option for photography where there is a strong tradition of direct licensing: there is no collecting society for photographers in the UK, so no application for an ECL is feasible at present.

Myth – anyone will be able to use my photos for free if they cannot find who owns them?
Fact – If a work is licensed following the verification of the diligent search, there will be a licence fee payable up-front for its use. The fee will be set at the going rate.

Myth – anyone can use my photos without my permission
Fact – Anyone wishing to use a work as an orphan must first undertake a diligent search for the rights-holder which is then verified with permission to use the work granted by the Government appointed independent authorising body. If the work is not genuinely orphan then the rights-holder should be found, if the search is not properly diligent, no licence will be issued.

Myth – the Act is the Instagram Act
Fact – Given the steps that must be taken before an orphan work can be copied, such as the diligent search, verification of the search and payment of a going rate fee, it is unlikely that the scheme will be attractive in circumstances where a substitute photograph is available. The rate payable for an orphan work will not undercut non-orphans.

Myth – a company can take my work and then sub-license it without my knowledge, approval or any payment
Fact – The licences to use an orphan work will not allow sub-licensing.

Myth – the stripping of metadata creates an orphan work
Fact – the absence or removal of metadata does not in itself make a work “orphan” or allow its use under the orphan works scheme

Myth – I will have to register my photos to claim copyright
Fact – Copyright will continue to be automatic and there is no need to register a work in order for it to enjoy copyright protection.

Myth – the UK is doing something radical and unprecedented with the Orphan Works powers
Fact – Other jurisdictions already allow the use of orphan works. The UK powers are largely based on what happens in Canada – which has been licensing orphan works since 1990.

maybe chicken little might have overeacted just a smidge or two

 

[Steve Smith]

maybe chicken little might have overeacted just a smidge or two

When did Chicken Licken get Americanised into Chicken Little?


Steve.

 

[kelack]

Does it actually matter?

 

[Steve Smith]

Does it actually matter?

Yes!


Steve.

 

[big soft moose]

When did Chicken Licken get Americanised into Chicken Little?


Steve.

I blame steve tyler

" if chicken little told you the sky was falling, and even if it was would you still come calling, I bet you would my freind, again and again and again... "