What do photographers think of this new act passed by the government??

What about the full quality image you sold to a customer, who then uses it in their promotions? It can be harvested, stripped of meta data and then rehosted as an "Orphan" work, free for all to abuse.
 
Dureth said:
What about the full quality image you sold to a customer, who then uses it in their promotions? It can be harvested, stripped of meta data and then rehosted as an "Orphan" work, free for all to abuse.
Click to expand...

But the "Orphan" work isn't free........... it has to be paid for at "the going rate"
 
So basically if you upload something online, make sure you upload it to every possible place that is publicly viewable and hope the image isn't stolen, but if it is then as it's watermarked, has metadata and clearly has your name on each site you hopefully will be able to be found in these 'extensive' searches.
 
I really don't understand this.

Presumably there's nothing to stop me going to any art website - taking a screenshot of a decent photo, putting it up on my own website and start selling it.

All I need to say is I "TRIED" to perform a diligent search. Even then, there appears to be no repercussions if it did come to light that I copied it!

What's to stop me going ahead and doing this right now??

EDIT: In fact, do we know who proposed / passed this thing? I might go find some of their personal images and start selling them...
 
Last edited:
RoyMi6 said:
I really don't understand this.

Presumably there's nothing to stop me going to any art website - taking a screenshot of a decent photo, putting it up on my own website and start selling it.
Click to expand...

Anyone can do that but have you tried it?

Try print something off the web 800px across on A4. It looks awful and if I had bought something online that looks like that, I will want my money back.
 
RoyMi6 said:
I really don't understand this.

Presumably there's nothing to stop me going to any art website - taking a screenshot of a decent photo, putting it up on my own website and start selling it.

All I need to say is I "TRIED" to perform a diligent search. Even then, there appears to be no repercussions if it did come to light that I copied it!

What's to stop me going ahead and doing this right now??

EDIT: In fact, do we know who proposed / passed this thing? I might go find some of their personal images and start selling them...
Click to expand...

This appears to be the big misconception, you cannot just use orphaned works for free. There is still a fee for using them. You will also need to show the measures you took in your diligent search.

It does seem to be a lot of scaremongering about what is actually contained within the reforms.

At the end of the day if someone wants to use work posted online without permission they will do it regardless.
 
I thought this on the BBC news item summed it up quite well. It doesn't seem as bad as people are making out.

For the first time, these "orphan works" - as they are known - can be licensed for commercial or non-commercial use.

However, in order to do so, the company in question would have to prove to an independent body that a "diligent search" to find and approach the copyright holder had taken place without success.

If the body is satisfied there has been a sufficient search, it would then allow the company to pay a licence fee to use the material.

This money is then to be held by the independent body, and can be claimed by the rights holder should they come forward at a later date.
Click to expand...
 
Indeed, it is not a massive change really from what already happens. In fact, a lot of media agencies will basically this already now - they try to find the copyright holder and have that seems to be impossible they will often include the photo anyway. Now they will be forced to pay this independent body who have the ability to re-compensate the original copyright holder if they are found.
 
There's then the problem of an independent body setting the license fee rather than the owner of the work.
 
Rojin said:
There's then the problem of an independent body setting the license fee rather than the owner of the work.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised more people aren't annoyed about that. Someone uses an "orphaned" work of yours, and they get a license to use it for a fee set by someone else? Why the hell should they be allowed to do that? If you can't determine the origin of the work to license you don't get to use it, pretty simple surely?
 
im just waiting for some independent body that everyone will end up having to pay subs to so they will fight for you. just get the feeling this is just a money making scheme cooked up by some idiot minister who's got a mate with an idea.
 
BF-Bert said:
This appears to be the big misconception, you cannot just use orphaned works for free. There is still a fee for using them. You will also need to show the measures you took in your diligent search.

It does seem to be a lot of scaremongering about what is actually contained within the reforms.

At the end of the day if someone wants to use work posted online without permission they will do it regardless.
Click to expand...

agree with this

interesting read at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130430/09022922890/no-uk-did-not-just-abolish-copyright-despite-what-photographers-seem-to-think.shtml
 
There are two issues here, the main one is that an independent body will be selling the "orphaned" work at a rate they set. It'll be nice if this rate is set in the photographers favour, but I doubt it. Then there is the diligent search... for a picture that is well described and unique, I'd imagine it'll be possible to locate the originator, for the thousands upon thousands of stock photos out there that photographers currently make money on.... by their generic nature they are going to be difficult to track down.

There is a reasoning behind this act, you have to think about what it is exactly. Someone with power has had it raised and pushed forward with a particular use in mind. If nothing is going to change, then why has the act been raised? You still have to pay a fee to use the works, why would you go down the route of locating\identifying an orphaned work when there are extensive stock and photo library resources already available? There will be a cost benefit that's why. Anyone who thinks this act is going to benefit photographers rather than corporations has their head buried in the sand.
 
Just don't like the grey area it creates. Previously it is just a blanket NO unless express permission has been given. It was very black and white. Now it is Diligent Search? It means all of the sudden a whole new industry has been created overnight with the "Independent body" and people searching for Orphan work. The cynical side of me feels certain papers or press would have a team who do this full time, have a set list of places they go to in order to qualify for this "Diligent Search" and if it hasn't shown up then they would use it. Who's to say they would just ignore it and plead innocent? And who lobby for this in the first place anyway?! The people who wanted this law are the ones who doesn't want to pay for art surely, it certainly it wasn't the people who create art in the first place.

I am also willing to bet there are bound to be photos that slip through those checks, easily.
 
Kevin Clark said:
The bill says

The regulations must provide that, for a work to qualify as an orphan work, it is a requirement that the owner of copyright in it has not been found after a diligent search made in accordance with the regulations.

So presumably if a picture has been obtained from YOUR flickr page or a post by you on a forum etc then that would fall outside of the requirement for it to be orphaned because a 'diligent search' wouldn't require anything more than just looking at the posters account to find out who actually owns it.
Click to expand...

This. I'm not sure I've got a problem with it, and perhaps the law makes sense. Examples:

  • Anything I really care about will have a full load of metadata, and my details as a watermark in the corner. Thus it’s clear who to contact.
  • Anything I post on YouTwitFace I probably don’t care about, and it’s kinda obvious who to contact anyways as it’s my profile that posted it. Same with forums etc.
  • Anything else I couldn’t give a monkeys if someone “steals” it.
 
Now I'm not saying that this will happen, but someone can crop your watermark out easily, strip all exif, and host on a random site somewhere very easily. They may do this to post the image on a forum without your details. This can then be picked up by anyone and wouldn't be easy to track back.

This is real devils advocate stuff, but it can and does happen now. Programs like Tineye exist for a reason. (I wonder if a TinEye like service will be developed further to help with the diligent search?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom