Sign the copyright petition

IMHO we're panicing a bit, and missing the real culprit here. Any pro or serious amateur should have their copyright details in the exif or IPTC metadata for their images, and so they should not be orphaned. The problem with this is that too many sites routinely strip this metadata off. The "Embedded metadat manifesto" site shows how some of the many social networking sites treat metadata, although it's badly written and hard to understand.

There's no reason that I can see for any site to strip off metadata. In fact, I suspect that stripping off metadata that identifies the creator may be in breach of the creator's moral rights, let alone other aspects of their copyright. I've had a search through the terms of Facebook and Twitpic (as far as they are understandable), and can see nowhere where I might be agreeing to them doing this to my images.

I'd personally like the new regulations to make it less acceptable (even less legal) for anyone to strip identifying metadata from an image. If we can get these few dozen companies to make simple changes that will cost them peanuts, we will be in a world where fewer orphans will occur.

I care about this because the current situation means that a large part of our common digital heritage will not be preserved for future generations. You can preserve a physical phot without copying it, but you can't preserve a digital photo without copying it. If archives know the owner, they can ask for permission; if they don't know the owner, they have been unwilling to take the risk of the necessary copying for preservation (particularly given some agressive mood music from DACS in the past).
 
Actually as far as I can see, this has the potential to actually protect Professionals far more than the current situation.

Certainly one thing that needs redressing is the fact that if a work is orphaned, it does not mean it can be used for free. It just means that the payment for use of it goes to an agency until the originator can be found or comes forward. Currently someone stripping the metadata and using an image without permission, does so without paying a penny, and if you catch them, you have to go through a long winded process, often through the courts.

So in theory this should make it a straightforward case of anyone using images, will either have to have the originators permission or have paid monies to the agency that manages the orphan images. :)
 
Signed a couple of days ago when I saw it linked to on an article about the changes grown enormously since I signed.

I'm not against all changes but I think this is just far too open to abuse. Not sure there's an ideal solution in the digital age, admittedly, but this has far too many potential issues right now.
 
Southdowns said:
I guess because at the moment, if you find an image you want to use, it can be a nightmare to find out who owns it. With the new law, it should be much easier, and you don't run a risk of being prosecuted so long as you've made every effort.

The pros won't like it, so need to up their game, but there IS a huge resource out there that could benefit the economy if it were easier to use.

Of course we need to make sure users DO make every effort, but it will be a lot easier to find the owners who are bothered about their copyright, taking away a lot of the "didn't know/couldn't find out" excuses.
Click to expand...

So what if its a resource? It's not theirs to exploit. Either you find the owner and ask or you live with the fact you can't use it.
 
WillNicholls said:
So what if its a resource? It's not theirs to exploit. Either you find the owner and ask or you live with the fact you can't use it.
Click to expand...

Well, you don't believe it's theirs morally, but that's the point; this law makes it theirs legally. I didn't say it's right, but you asked "why change things", so I offered an explanation.

Put another way, either you assert your right to ownership or you live with the fact that you have none. Anyone who cares is doing that anyway, so what's the issue?

If you read my original post, you'll see that I agree with you in princal that something should be yours by default, but think that in practice it's a non issue because it's easy to protect yourself. By deffinition the only people who'll lose their copyright are people who don't care; so what's the moral problem?

Putting it in terms that you might be a touch more comfortable with, the new way to explicitly give permission to use your work is to not assert your right to it, just like those of us producing physical products have had to do for decades. You've lost no rights at all, not one, you've just been given a new way to assert them.
 
Last edited:
This change amounts to the worst possible situation.The old act 1988( I think it was) made sure that the BURDEN OF PROOF lay with the publisher of the photo.IE if you came across a photo belonging to yourself in a book that had been published without your permission (which I have on four separate occasions). You requested a payment for the publication and it could not be contested as the law clearly stated that the publisher must have your permission it was no defence to "say I did not know who it belonged to and I had tried to find out but couldn't ".

Now the BURDEN OF PROOF has been moved onto the photographer IE the publisher can say to the photographer BEFORE any proceedings " we tried to find out who it belonged to and we couldn't ( they could be lying OR telling the truth) that then means the photographer has to show they did not try and not only that but succeed in convincing a third party (County Court Judge) if he wants to take the matter further.

It was a deliberate act by the Government to change the burden of proof around, and the ruse is that it is made to look fair by saying "oh well they have prove they have tried" NO THEY DON'T they only have to SAY they did to the photographer then he has to risk going to court to see wether it will be believed or not. He did not have to do that under the old law as the facts spoke for themselves and there was no issue of belief (the burden of proving). Whoever was behind this new exactly what to do to remove the photographers absolute copyright to his material. Absolute CON! :bat:
 
Response from my MP!


Thank you for your email concerning the orphan works scheme.

I recognise that this is an issue you feel strongly about and would like to take this opportunity to outline what the Government's reforms mean.

There have been several reports in the media incorrectly claiming that the new orphan works provisions in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act will remove the automatic right to copyright owners of photos posted online. However, this is not the case. The powers will not remove copyright for photographs or any other works subject to copyright, and they will not allow anyone to use a copyright work without permission and free of charge. A licence will be needed to use an orphan work and this requires a diligent search for the copyright holder which will then be verified by an independent body. The applicant must also pay a licence fee up-front at a rate appropriate to the type of work and type of use. Only then will a licence be issued and a licence fee will be held for the missing rights-holder to claim when they are reunited with their work without having to go to court.

What constitutes a diligent search will be covered in robust regulations and guidance currently being formulated by Government with representatives from creators and the photography sector. It is important to point out that orphan works are unlikely to be contemporary photos as the cost of using such a work is likely to be the same as using a non-orphan work, so there is no incentive for orphan works to undercut non-orphan works.

I appreciate the importance of ensuring metadata is kept with the work to which it applies to help prevent further orphan works. This issue is best addressed by industry and I am glad a Metadata Working Group has been set up to consider what can be done to address metadata-stripping.

The introduction of the orphan works scheme will be a positive development for creators as currently orphan works are either not used at all or are used unlawfully, meaning that the creator may miss out on remuneration. However, due to these changes, creators will be able to check the register, free of charge periodically for any of their works that may have been wrongly declared orphan and claim remuneration when they are reunited with their work. You will also be pleased to know the Government is working to make it easier and cheaper to get justice for copyright infringement.

I hope this reassures you of the Government's commitment to our world class creative industry and ensuring we have a robust copyright framework that keeps pace with the modern digital age while supporting creators' rights.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.

With regards,
Richard
 
Received by email today:

The e-petition 'Stop Legalised Theft of Copyrighted Works' signed by you recently reached 27,880 signatures and a response has been made to it.
As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: This petition appears to address a measure in the recent Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERR Act) concerning orphan works. In fact, the Act ensures that the work of photographers and illustrators cannot simply be taken by others through a number of strong protections for creators’ interests. Orphan works are copyright works (such as books, photographs, films and music) for which one or more of the copyright owners cannot be found. Without the permission of all the rights-holders these works can only be used lawfully to a very limited extent. There are millions of such works held in the nation’s museums, archives and libraries. With regard to the removal of data about the ownership of the copyright work (metadata), it is already a civil infringement under UK copyright law to knowingly and without authority strip metadata from a copyright work. If the infringer communicates the work to the public it may be a criminal offence. It may also be a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006 if the infringer claims to be the rights holder. The Government wants to enable these culturally and economically valuable works to be used while protecting the interests of the missing rights-holders. Section 77 of the ERR Act contains powers to allow the Secretary of State to appoint a body to license the use of orphan works. Any person wishing to use an orphan work will need to apply to the government-appointed authorising body for a licence. As part of that process they must undertake a diligent search for the rights-holder which will then be verified by the Government appointed independent authorising body. The absence or removal of metadata does not in itself make a work “orphan” or allow its use under the orphan works scheme. Only once the diligent search for the rights-holder has been verified by the authorising body and after the licence fee has been paid will a licence to use the orphan work be issued. Licences will be for specified purposes and subject to a licence fee which is payable up-front at a rate appropriate to the type of work and type of use. The licence fee will then be held for the missing rights-holder to claim. If the work is not genuinely orphan then the rights-holder should be found by the search. If the search is not properly diligent, no licence will be issued. The proposal for an orphan works scheme was the subject of a formal written consultation and extensive informal consultation with all stakeholders, including several representatives from photography organisations. There were a number of genuine concerns which have been addressed by various safeguards, such as the verification of the diligent search and the requirement for remuneration to be set aside. However, some media articles have contained a number of inaccuracies about the scheme. Under these powers copyright will continue to be automatic and there is no need to register a work in order for it to enjoy copyright protection. The powers do not allow any person simply to use a photograph or any other work if they cannot find the rights-holder. A Working Group has been set up by the industry-led Copyright Hub to consider the issue of metadata and try to obtain cross-industry agreement on ensuring that metadata is not removed from copyright works. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.
Click to expand...
 
Signed, searching for the petition led me here not sure how I missed the forum previously :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top