User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  8
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: OUCH : UK changes copyright law "Orphaned Works"

  1. #1
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,644
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    OUCH : UK changes copyright law "Orphaned Works"

    Overnight in the United Kingdom, something happened that is causing quite a stir. The UK introduced an Act called the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act.

    One component of this is about photography. It uses 'orphaned works' as being now a public domain item, without copyright. The big issue here is that sites like Instagram and Facebook strip EXIF data when you upload your photos, thus someone else can come along, claim the work is 'orphaned' cause it has no owner details attached and claim it, make money of it, etc, with no recourse for the owner.

    More details here : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04..._act_landgrab/

    Photographers will be required to register their copyright (at a price) over their creative works, to protect themselves and their works.
    Last edited by ricktas; 29-04-2013 at 7:23pm.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    09 Nov 2009
    Location
    Kalgoorlie
    Posts
    1,153
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sad. I suppose the only way is to either keep your works off the web or upload them in such low quality that ripping them off is unlikely to be useful. Of course none of us want to display our photography in poor quality so I think back to option 1 and stay away from the sites that strip your details.

  3. #3
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,827
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It does sound bad. I suppose it affects everybody, not just Britons. Anyway, it looks like this will not pass quietly into benightedness:
    note the promise of a "firestorm" [of protests].

    Anyway, whereas there were a wealth of wherefores, I could not find an obvious why.
    Any legal eagles with scalpels care to dissect and clarify?
    At this stage - and likely at most future ones - I will refrain from giving a second hoot.
    m.
    Last edited by ameerat42; 29-04-2013 at 8:02pm.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  4. #4
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,186
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Easy solution:

    Don't post photos onto sites that exposes images to the public in such a manner.

    This should do two things.

    1. help to protect your IP
    2. force websites such as these to enforce better IP protection for the creators(if less people upload images and traffic slows appropriately).
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  5. #5
    Ausphotography irregular Mark L's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2010
    Location
    magical Mudgee
    Posts
    18,836
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    1. help to protect your IP
    2. force websites such as these to enforce better IP protection for the creators(if less people upload images and traffic slows appropriately).
    Though I suspect majority of people posting majority of photos don't know much (or care) about copyright.

  6. #6
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    06 Aug 2012
    Location
    Semaphore
    Posts
    530
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L View Post
    Though I suspect majority of people posting majority of photos don't know much (or care) about copyright.
    True, but I think we forget that there are many young people who don't actually know what copyright is/means. In a world of downloadable music, movies and images, I suspect the notion of ownership has become somewhat lost.

    PhotoWatchDog has posted this to FB, and I've only just caught up. What's not clear is what happens to images that are Watermarked? Does this not count as a stamp of ownership, or are they orphans?? I can understand how FB etc can strip EXIF data, but can they strip/ignore a Watermark on an image

    Bring on the Firestorm of protest

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    01 Dec 2010
    Location
    salisbury
    Posts
    566
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Orphaned photos,according to the act,are photos that after a diligent search does not find the creator of the works, then they can be used, if you sign up to any web hosting site you identity is on that site.

    Jack.
    Pentax K5iis, k7 plus lenses from 18mm-600mm.

  8. #8
    Administrator
    Threadstarter
    ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,644
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pixy View Post
    Orphaned photos,according to the act,are photos that after a diligent search does not find the creator of the works, then they can be used, if you sign up to any web hosting site you identity is on that site.

    Jack.
    Yes, but if I take a copy of your photo and stick it on facebook, suddenly your photo is an orphan! The Act also does not define what is regarded as a 'diligent search'. So once your photo (my copy of it) is on facebook and shared around, someone sees one of those copies, checks for EXIF, checks for watermark..nup. Ok search done, orphaned work..woohooo!
    Last edited by ricktas; 30-04-2013 at 6:33am.

  9. #9
    Ausphotography Regular enseth's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Feb 2013
    Location
    Orange
    Posts
    1,750
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So does Watermarking fix the problem?

  10. #10
    Administrator
    Threadstarter
    ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,644
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by enseth View Post
    So does Watermarking fix the problem?
    We do not know yet. The law needs to be tested in court to see.

  11. #11
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,641
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by enseth View Post
    So does Watermarking fix the problem?
    It won't hurt! It would at least allow a prima facie case in favour of the © owner.
    regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
    Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff



  12. #12
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,827
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There's nothing for it: TAKE BAD IMAGES

  13. #13
    Who let the rabble in? Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,054
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ricktas View Post
    Yes, but if I take a copy of your photo and stick it on facebook, suddenly your photo is an orphan! The Act also does not define what is regarded as a 'diligent search'. So once your photo (my copy of it) is on facebook and shared around, someone sees one of those copies, checks for EXIF, checks for watermark..nup. Ok search done, orphaned work..woohooo!
    But then couldn't it then be proven that your photo was hosted on a site (with the EXIF etc intact) previous to someone else posting it on facebook and therefore proving that that other person had stolen it. You would also know who the person was that was responsible for stealing your photo as it would be on their facebook account. I mean, they can track terrorists and other criminals that are way more stealthy than a simple act like this of stealing.

  14. #14
    Administrator
    Threadstarter
    ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,644
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance B View Post
    But then couldn't it then be proven that your photo was hosted on a site (with the EXIF etc intact) previous to someone else posting it on facebook and therefore proving that that other person had stolen it. You would also know who the person was that was responsible for stealing your photo as it would be on their facebook account. I mean, they can track terrorists and other criminals that are way more stealthy than a simple act like this of stealing.
    Yes, but the third party who used the image is the one you would want to chase, and they have done all they need to, to try and find the owner, thus you have no recourse with the person who is making the money off your photo. There would be two issues here, the person who 'stole' the image is one case, and the third person who used it for gain is the other case. Gets messy..eh?

  15. #15
    Administrator
    Threadstarter
    ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,644
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    http://www.stop43.org/pages/news_and_resources.php

    Stop43 has been setup to try and get the UK government to amend the legislation.

    Which is British? Orphan Works and ECL breach foreigners' rights under the Berne Convention. Flag images © 2012 Pete Jenkins & Jeff Sedlik. Text & Logo © 2010 Paul Ellis. All Rights Reserved. Free for use digitally and in print to support and report the Stop43 campaign against changes in copyright laws against the interests of creators. All other rights reserved. Flag images © 2012 Pete Jenkins & Jeff Sedlik. Text © 2012 Paul Ellis. All Rights Reserve

    *used with permission as granted above*
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by ricktas; 01-05-2013 at 6:32am.

  16. #16
    Ausphotography Regular JimD's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Mar 2009
    Location
    South Coast
    Posts
    1,286
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wonder if something like this is on the drawing board at Canberra?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    f o t o w o r x

    People taking the time out to give me CC is always very much appreciated

  17. #17
    D750 Shines cupic's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Oct 2009
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    782
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Is the Govt Kowtow to the Corporations




    Nikon D750,D700,D300s,Coolpix P7700
    Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR, Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 VR, Nikkor 70mm-300mm VR, 35mm DX f/1.8, 50mm D f/1.8, 85mm D f/1.8, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Tokina 100mm f/2.8, Tamron 60mm f/2 , Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8 VC Di

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    861
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    too bad if your cameras can't record exif data

    - - - Updated - - -

    too bad if your cameras can't record exif data

  19. #19
    Administrator
    Threadstarter
    ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,644
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sunny6teen View Post
    too bad if your cameras can't record exif data

    - - - Updated - - -

    too bad if your cameras can't record exif data
    I reckon that would only be film camera's and you can add EXIF to those easily enough. EXIF editors are easy to get.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    861
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ricktas View Post
    I reckon that would only be film camera's and you can add EXIF to those easily enough. EXIF editors are easy to get.
    one of the great benefits of digital and possibly the least recognised...not having to jot the info down

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •