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

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 29 Apr 2013 at 11:29

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

The potential for abuse looks quite high!

Edit!!

I suppose that means you need to watermark everything you post.

An Exception · 29 Apr 2013 at 11:45

I'm not particularly protective over my pictures, but even I think this is disgusting.

--- Z --- · 29 Apr 2013 at 12:13

******* stupid.

Really has me riled this, I'm not the kind of person to get worked up but this is stupid. Why take work and appreciation away from the little guy? It equates to stealing, plain and simple.

Raymond Lin · 29 Apr 2013 at 12:18

Start blogging and link it instead I guess!

Ps I already everything I post on FB anyway.

Kevin Clark · 29 Apr 2013 at 12:25

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.

Dureth · 29 Apr 2013 at 12:25

The thing to consider is even if you watermark or ensure the meta data is on your images as soon as someone takes your work, removes the mark or data and then re-uploads it the modified version is free game for everyone. There is no provision in the act to prevent this, in fact it seems to be a purposeful element of it!

King Damager · 29 Apr 2013 at 12:37

Watermark everything, and limit uploading to anywhere that strips metadata.

Better actually make a good looking watermark.

kd

Dureth · 29 Apr 2013 at 12:53

King Damager said:
Watermark everything, and limit uploading to anywhere that strips metadata.

Better actually make a good looking watermark.

kd

Make sure the watermark is prominent as if they can crop the watermark from the image and then place that anywhere else on-line the cropped image becomes free to use.

An Exception · 29 Apr 2013 at 13:08

Dureth said:
The thing to consider is even if you watermark or ensure the meta data is on your images as soon as someone takes your work, removes the mark or data and then re-uploads it the modified version is free game for everyone. There is no provision in the act to prevent this, in fact it seems to be a purposeful element of it!

This was what I thought as well. It alloys for blatant image theft with no re-recourse.

An Exception · 29 Apr 2013 at 13:09

Dureth said:
Make sure the watermark is prominent as if they can crop the watermark from the image and then place that anywhere else on-line the cropped image becomes free to use.

Then you take away the impact from the image. Catch 22

whitecrook · 29 Apr 2013 at 13:14

Would using Steganopgraphy -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography -- provide a valid defence -- i.e. you could prove that someone is using YOUR picture. Also this technique can survive image manipulation and editing etc.

Raymond Lin · 29 Apr 2013 at 13:22

whitecrook said:
Would using Steganopgraphy -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography -- provide a valid defence -- i.e. you could prove that someone is using YOUR picture. Also this technique can survive image manipulation and editing etc.

The problem isn't proving ownership, I can easily do that with a production of a full size res (which they don't have), an unedited copy (which they don't have), or a RAW file (which they don't have).

A Steganopgraphy does not prevent someone using your work without credit.

Ksanti · 29 Apr 2013 at 13:24

If we take this as a given, we need a new web standard image that has uneditable metadata and disabled screenshotting etc. while it's visible, and then to get every existing website to support the new format, if we want to own our own images. This is ridiculous. All this act does is mean that you cannot share anything of any value in terms of creative content because otherwise it's fair game for people to steal. E.g. I could start printing Miss Aniela's images as I have a few high resolution files from them, and as long as I can reliably claim I didn't know how to find out who took it (and let's face it, joe bloggs wouldn't) I can sell them? This is particularly hard for most fine art photographers when the value is generated in part by the limited nature of the prints rather than just wanting to sell in sheer quantity e.g. £850 a pop for a limited edition of 5 prints.

An Exception · 29 Apr 2013 at 13:59

I actually think this act has come from the direct result of corruption. It seems our officials are not interested in the 'good' of the people, unless it involves some kind of propaganda to further their agenda's.

Judgeneo · 29 Apr 2013 at 14:22

This act passed?
Literally in shock, time to vote pirate?

An Exception · 29 Apr 2013 at 14:26

^^^
Me to, this act means copyright is only for big media now.

Biggus · 29 Apr 2013 at 16:23

Here's a handy graph of social media sites which shows what they do with the metadata, which should help people make more informed decisions as to what is safe(r) or not to post their images.

http://www.embeddedmetadata.org/social-media-test-results.php

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 29 Apr 2013 at 19:47

Need the Daily Mail with a headline about pictures of your kids to be printed and sold without your knowledge (or some thing along those lines)

The onus should not be on the creator of the media to copyright it. This makes it far too easy for a printing business to collect a load of files with details stripped and water marks removed (many do simply watermark at the bottom to prevent spoiling the image) and start selling other peoples work with near impunity.

BF-Bert · 29 Apr 2013 at 20:25

In reality just what does this change? The way I see it the answer is nothing. People who want to use copyright images will do so with or without these reforms. If you find someone using an image of yours then at least there is now a fund for payment.

Energize · 29 Apr 2013 at 21:34

As bad as the principal is. In practical terms I don't see this as being a big issue for content creators. If all you put on the web are low resolution highly compressed images, there isn't much room for exploitation.