Not sure if this has been discussed on here yet... (news)

[Mr Happy]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_la...

The Register said:

For the first time anywhere in the world, the Act will permit the widespread commercial exploitation of unidentified work - the user only needs to perform a "diligent search". But since this is likely to come up with a blank, they can proceed with impunity. The Act states that a user of a work can act as if they are the owner of the work (which should be you) if they're given permission to do so by the Secretary of State and are acting as a regulated body.

Basically, the Government are about to enact into Law a method that allows all 'orphaned' works to be used for commercial gain, with no crediting or payback required for the actual photographer who created the image in the first place.

Is it time for watermarks on everything now?

[crmcatee]

This is bad news for everyone - I wonder what impact it will have on folks uploading to Flickr etc..

Don't want it copied and resold with no recompense to the owner - don't put it on the web.

[MysteryLemon]

So does this mean that photographer copywright basically means F-all?

Or not? It's a confusing article.

[crmcatee]

It's probably a worst case scenario - and a little bit of scaremongering. Does seem a silly way to go about it though.

[MartinP]

Doesn't seem much detail available but I wonder if this is really going to have much of an impact.

The articles on this act state that the person/organisation wanting to use an orphaned work will have to prove they "made a diligent search" to find the copyright holder, and then register and pay a licence fee. Given the increasing number and power of image search tools on the web, I can't imagine there being too many cases where it's not possible to find the copyright owner.

Secondly, images posted on the web are treated as a free to take by so many anyway, this legislation won't make any difference to those individuals.

[tim-b]

MartinP said:

...Given the increasing number and power of image search tools on the web, I can't imagine there being too many cases where it's not possible to find the copyright owner....

Let's hope the image search sites continue to improve, they rarely find any of mine from flickr!

[Ledaig]

MartinP said:

The articles on this act state that the person/organisation wanting to use an orphaned work will have to prove they "made a diligent search" to find the copyright holder, and then register and pay a licence fee.

I would be prepared to bet that they will not have to do anything of the sort.

If this were to take off then you will see a new variety of 'stock' image websites where they will host as many orphan works as they can find, which you will be able to register as a user with (for a fee of course) and then use these images which will come with the requisite copy of the search.

[Downton Mini]

Just received details of this in an email from the camera club I'm a member of. Sorry if most of it contains bits already posted but there is a link to a petition


All,

You are probably not aware that new legislation has been pushed through commons concerning our hobby and our rights as photographers.

A new legislation has been rushed through parliament with no thought, has now reached royal assent. This legislation means that photographers and illustrators alike will see their artworks legally taken and used for another's own gain.

Unless your works are registered or plastered with a watermark, anyone can use your copyrighted work for their own commercial and personal gains provided they have made a small effort to search for the original owner. If no owner can be found, they are free to do with it whatever they want.

If anything the law should be the reverse and NO image can be used without the permission of the author. I have had an image stolen to be used on a web site, and I am sure it will happen to many more if we do not stand firm.

I urge everyone to sign this petition and contact the local MP to show your disapproval. I have.

Pass on to our other photography friends/ clubs etc. Tis is one thing that needs to be stopped.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49422?go...

[Simpo Two]

How does one 'register' a work? If I have 600 wedding photos do I have to register each one?

Any by 'watermark' do they mean a visble 'Photograph by Blah' caption or something in the EXIF data?

[Mr Happy]

Simpo Two said:

How does one 'register' a work? If I have 600 wedding photos do I have to register each one?

Any by 'watermark' do they mean a visble 'Photograph by Blah' caption or something in the EXIF data?

From how I read the story, it is on a work by work basis, so yeah - each of those photos will have to be registered individually.

Safest way I'd assume would be to use a prominent watermark for online copies, ideally relating to this ridiculous law.

[raredevil]

Makes interesting reading.

Firstly I would add clear copyright, no copy disclaimer and contact details to the EXIF data. Admittedly EXIF data can be changed but it's a start!

Secondly I would embed a hidden copyright watermark in the centre of the image (which can be done in photoshop).

Then if anyone uses the image commercially without your permission(on a website not printed material) it will be easier to prove they have not made sufficient effort to contact the copyright holder and pursue them for copyright infringement.

Then there are services like http://tineye.com/about and http://www.picscout.com/products-services/imagetra...

[MartinP]

A couple of less alarmist articles on the new legislation:

http://duckrabbit.info/blog/2013/05/hurtling-towar...

http://duckrabbit.info/blog/2013/05/myths-and-fact...

The initial view of my solicitors (who are London based IP specialists) is the same as the 2nd article, so fingers crossed this is how it all pans out.

[Mr Happy]

MartinP said:

A couple of less alarmist articles on the new legislation:

http://duckrabbit.info/blog/2013/05/hurtling-towar...

http://duckrabbit.info/blog/2013/05/myths-and-fact...

The initial view of my solicitors (who are London based IP specialists) is the same as the 2nd article, so fingers crossed this is how it all pans out.

There are some very interesting comments on the first link, especially regarding that blog.

Also, the reg has put up their own FAQ on this bill: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/03/instagram_...

Edited by Mr Happy on Friday 3rd May 17:17