Be glad you don't live here - no photos

AndMan

Came across this while checking out the viewfinder blog on the BBC website, and checking out the Copyright Action website.

There are 2 bits of "legislation" in the works here in the UK:

The first will potentially eradicate copyright of photos as it will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search so called "orphan-works".

The second potentially goes some way to banning street photography as the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) has a proposed new code for personal information online that in effect will prohibit photography in public places where anyone who's in the photograph might be unhappy about being photographed.

More details here: http://copyrightaction.com/node/314/390#comment-390

Snowgirl

Rather Big Brother-ish, isn't it? Dreadful.

AndMan

Snowgirl wrote:

Rather Big Brother-ish, isn't it? Dreadful.

Just a tad, particularly as we allegedly have the highest number of cctv cameras per capita in the world.
It is also of note here in the street forum that taking the picture of a child (under 16) in a public place without the consent of its guardian is a actually a breach of the UK (& I think EU) privacy laws (or the current interpretation of them).

michswiss

I just read the whole thing. On both points: Wow, just wow. :banned

Roadkill

Snowgirl wrote:

Rather Big Brother-ish, isn't it? Dreadful.

That's the UK

mercphoto

AndMan wrote:

The first will potentially eradicate copyright of photos as it will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search so called "orphan-works".

There are very good reasons for orphan works bills. Unfortunately the unintended negative side effects are hard to deal with.

michswiss

mercphoto wrote:

There are very good reasons for orphan works bills. Unfortunately the unintended negative side effects are hard to deal with.

Can you expand on this? For example, given that most of us don't use our real names on DGrin, could the images posted here be construed as "Orphaned" if there was no "Reasonable" way to contact the real photographer? I realise that's an extreme example, but I'm truly curious. Basically, what constitutes orphaned and what is reasonable effort to identify the photographer or copyright owner?

mercphoto

michswiss wrote:

Can you expand on this? For example, given that most of us don't use our real names on DGrin, could the images posted here be construed as "Orphaned" if there was no "Reasonable" way to contact the real photographer? I realise that's an extreme example, but I'm truly curious. Basically, what constitutes orphaned and what is reasonable effort to identify the photographer or copyright owner?

Since you outlined the negative consequence part of my statement I'll assume you want me to expand upon the "good reasons for orphan works bills" part. A co-worker of mine is more versed in that than I and can give specific examples, which I hope to be able to do later.

michswiss

mercphoto wrote:

Since you outlined the negative consequence part of my statement I'll assume you want me to expand upon the "good reasons for orphan works bills" part. A co-worker of mine is more versed in that than I and can give specific examples, which I hope to be able to do later.

Looking forward to it. Thanks. Btw, I wasn't so much intending to highlight the negatives rather the unintended implications as outlined in the article.

Patti

That removes the UK from my list of vacation choices.

thoth

Patti wrote:

That removes the UK from my list of vacation choices.

The UK was on a vacation list?

mercphoto

michswiss wrote:

Looking forward to it. Thanks. Btw, I wasn't so much intending to highlight the negatives rather the unintended implications as outlined in the article.

Todd's example is the dispute over the movie "Spinal Tap". Its surprising but this is a relatively new movie and in dispute was who the copyright owner was and if copyright still attached. Because of this dispute the movie nearly died (would be legal Russian roulette to try to make, distribute and sell the movie if the copyright is in dispute). I do not know if the problem became resolved or if the copyright expired. Some would argue we'd be better off if that movie did die away....

There are some who claim that the 20th Century will become a black hole for the arts due to copyright issues. Whether its because copyrights have been extended to unreasonable lengths of time (Steam Boat Willy is still protected), or fear of litigation on whether a copyright has expired or being unable to locate the copyright holder, etc.

thoth

mercphoto wrote:

Some would argue we'd be better off if that movie did die away....

Pfft... no movie sounds better on 11...

bdcolen

AndMan wrote:

Came across this while checking out the viewfinder blog on the BBC website, and checking out the Copyright Action website.

There are 2 bits of "legislation" in the works here in the UK:

The first will potentially eradicate copyright of photos as it will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search so called "orphan-works".

The second potentially goes some way to banning street photography as the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) has a proposed new code for personal information online that in effect will prohibit photography in public places where anyone who's in the photograph might be unhappy about being photographed.

More details here: http://copyrightaction.com/node/314/390#comment-390

Horrifying - Both of them. And as to this "orphan works thing..." There is a book floating around with a photo of mine on its cover. The image has also been used for publicity purposed, and as such has appeared on newspaper front pages. I am not credited, have not received payment, and when I contacted the publisher, I was told they were 'so glad to hear from me' because they had searched to find out whose photo it was, to no avail. Well...The author was sent the photo in 1980 by a Washington Post reporter who wanted to help the author write a book (the project never went forward.) The Post reporter apparently send a print of the photo to the author, trying to soften her up. (This is what the publisher of the current book told me.) So I went to the Washington Post website, did a simple search in their archive, and up popped a 1980 story, with the photo - with a credit line reading B. D. Colen/The Washington Post. This was not an orphaned work - it was a credited, copyrighted work. So the publisher said they'd be happy to pay me, and when I named a figure, the publisher said "we've never paid that much," and offered me an insulting 10% of what I was asking. (And yes, I am in discussions with an attorney.)

Oh, so how did I know my photo had been stolen - and I use the word quite advisedly? Two years ago my youngest son said "Dad, there's a book I want for my birthday." He couldn't remember the author or the title, but said it was "written by some Weather Underground woman" and said it had been on the cover of the Boston Phoenix. So I went to the Phoenix website, googled "Weather underground" and up it came - and the cover of the paper was a very familiar photo - one of my all time favorites - that had run as a full page in the 1968 George Washington University yearbook - with my credit.

So "orphaned works" - orphaned by whom?
SUN.jpg