Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Are we all to be ripped off?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
29 Apr 2013 - 2:54 PM


Quote: I don't follow that.

Because they have to do a diligent search for the owner - if they take an image of my Facebook page the logic is it's my image and therefore they at least have to ask if it is or not. Same for images on any site. It would be hard for them to say they'd done a diligent search and not even asked the owner of the site or page if they owned the image.


Quote: How far do they need to go to see who the owner is?

Don't know, but diligent would imply more than looking for meta data, and again, they would have to ask the person owning the site they took it from. It is of course possible that person then claims ownership and either gives them the use or asks for payment!


Quote: So the government gets the money and walks away. The company says 'OK boys, find something that is not copyrighted' because I refuse to pay a professional photographer fees' and they find your image. You see your image being used, and the government says 'don't look at me' all we've done is given them a license. You go to court. At the moment it is strict liability - you have copyright outright and they cannot argue that and you can invoice them for it. Under the new law they can say 'OOPS sorry' and refuse to pay anything for use up to now because it was used in good faith - proving otherwise is another burden on the copyright holder. They could also claim that (a) your charges for future use are unreasonable because they took it in all good faith and (b) it is unreasonable for them to be forced to stop using it immediately for commercial reasons and the courts are likely to take this into consideration.

Again, it comes back to the diligent search - if you have the image on a site or page you own and they didn't contact you they haven't done a basic search let a lone a diligent one. This is aimed at older images that ownership is hard to find and often stops the use of the images.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
29 Apr 2013 - 2:54 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
29 Apr 2013 - 2:58 PM


Quote: Corporate users can now effectively ignore copyright held by the small guy

How do you figure that? If you own the copyright you own the copyright they are not making all images copyright free. They are just allowing the use of orphaned images - where ownership can't be found.

JackAllTog
JackAllTog e2 Member 53577 forum postsJackAllTog vcard United Kingdom58 Constructive Critique Points
29 Apr 2013 - 3:10 PM

So i write a blog, and copy an image from another blog that did not tell me where it came from saying i could not see the source but i really liked this - focussed2.jpg

I get 4000 click through's to some other product and make 230 from this image.
You complain and after we establish if this is your image, you ask me to take it down, and i say that i made a reasonable attempt to find the original for permission so I'm not liable?
This can operate across international jurisdictions.

mikehit
mikehit  56294 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
29 Apr 2013 - 3:11 PM


Quote: if they take an image of my Facebook page the logic is it's my image and therefore they at least have to ask if it is or not
....
Again, it comes back to the diligent search - if you have the image on a site or page you own and they didn't contact you they haven't done a basic search let a lone a diligent one. This is aimed at older images that ownership is hard to find and often stops the use of the images.


The problem there is how far will the site owners go ? I posted an image on Flickr recently and had one reply that said they have 'forwarded it' (or whatever the term is) so it is already in the wild ending up lord knows where and the owners of that site will have no idea whose it. In their eyes it is now 'orphan'.
As an example lets take arguably the worst company of all (Facebook). In Zuckerberg's opinion, there is no such thing as electronic privacy: they will not care whose it is and they sure as hell won't go hunting for the owner. So the company asks them 'is this yours' and FB say 'No'. Do you call that due diligence? I don't - but what are the next steps?
In fact it seems that FB's aim is to make all photographs the property of FB so the company goes to them and asks 'is this yours'? FB say 'yes' and collect the money.


Quote: diligent would imply more than looking for meta data

But what....?



Quote: It is of course possible that person then claims ownership and either gives them the use or asks for payment!

I would say it is far more than 'possible' - we already have seen cases where people have poached wedding photographs to use on their business site. Pinch it, strip all meta data then say 'I couldn't find the owner'. At the moment that is not a defence, but it will be.


As I mentioned we are moving from an environment of simple-to-understand strict liability to one of maybes and justification and in legal matters that is never a good thing. It makes it exceedingly confusing for what purpose? So a company can commercially use and image without paying anything? IMO the potential to go wrong far exceeds the convenience that some claim.


In your opinion, what is the benefit of this change?

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
29 Apr 2013 - 3:26 PM


Quote: and i say that i made a reasonable attempt to find the original for permission so I'm not liable?

But you obviously didn't make a reasonable attempt - as if the image had come from a blog or anywhere with some way of contacting the person who owns the blog and you didn't contact them you didn't make even a basic attempt at finding out ownership.


Quote: In Zuckerberg's opinion, there is no such thing as electronic privacy: they will not care whose it is and they sure as hell won't go hunting for the owner.

It isn't FB who have to hunt the owner the person wanting the image has to do that and in terms of FB it's easy - send the page owner a message!


Quote: But what....?

As I have said a couple of times - contact the site or page owner for starters. Run one of those image searching software, TinEye etc....


Quote: then say 'I couldn't find the owner' - At the moment that is not a defence, but it will be.

And how would you prove you'd looked for the owner?


Quote: So a company can commercially use and image without paying anything?

No, they have to pay the government for a licence to use orphaned images and the owner if one can be found.


Quote: In your opinion, what is the benefit of this change?

Not many - the only one I can think of it will allow older images that the owner really can't be found to be used by education and other organisations. I'm not for or against it. I can't really see it will change much really. 9 times out of 10 we probably don't even know our images have been used without permission.

mikehit
mikehit  56294 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
29 Apr 2013 - 3:37 PM


Quote: I can't really see it will change much really.

And that really is my point: if a new law does not change anything, why bring one in because this law will create problems, and solve none. And if the only real imperative is so they can use out of date images that really smacks of laziness and/or an ideology (a la Zuckerberg) that does not match with the needs of the real world (and if an educational organisation cannot find a suitable image among the zillions under creative commons then perhaps they should not be in business....and that is only half-joking).

You have already seen threats of people withdrawing content from the internet. Is the ability to use old material really worth it?

JackAllTog
JackAllTog e2 Member 53577 forum postsJackAllTog vcard United Kingdom58 Constructive Critique Points
29 Apr 2013 - 3:39 PM

So flicker can delete your free account after 90 days of you not using it, would this make all your images considered as orphan? Would other sites that copied and legitimately referenced these items now have rights to sell them ?
Would Flickr have the right to sell all images for all accounts not logged into for 90 days and as i rarely check my yahoo email had they asked me anyway?

Would all your images pass to the public on your death, or would they pass to your family?

hobbs
hobbs  101222 forum posts United Kingdom
29 Apr 2013 - 3:41 PM

Here's a better write up of whats happening. Digital Media Law

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
29 Apr 2013 - 3:49 PM


Quote: and if an educational organisation cannot find a suitable image among the zillions under creative commons then perhaps they should not be in business

I'm Head of Learning Technologies and Learning Resources for an FE/HE college - you'd be amazed at how hard it is to find images that are worth using and CC. We do use Flickr a lot but also buy into stock images and images databases.


Quote: You have already seen threats of people withdrawing content from the internet. Is the ability to use old material really worth it?

The trouble is people panic first then find out what the law really means. It's like every change to FB T&Cs, normally nothing to worry about. So, images will come off the net for a short while I am sure but they will be back again in 6 months when they miss having the "likes" and "votes".

Is it worth it? Doubt it. I guess they are trying to simplify things in terms of saying if you can't find the owner you can use it. Which I agree seems unfair to the owner when FB etc strip data. But the person wanting to use the image does have to do more than the basics to find the owner. I remember all you were once advised to do was email the site and say, "we'd like to use your image, if we don't hear back in 14 days we will take that as agreement that we can go ahead and use the image." That was changed and you have to have a reply now.

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
29 Apr 2013 - 3:54 PM


Quote: Would all your images pass to the public on your death, or would they pass to your family?

Unless you put in a will that the copyright is to pass to your family or whoever, then yes they are public I think.

About Flickr, pretty much would advise not using it. I would really advise not putting more than one image on anywhere like FB and using that as an advert to link back to a more secure site.

mikehit
mikehit  56294 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
29 Apr 2013 - 4:09 PM


Quote: We do use Flickr a lot but also buy into stock images and images databases.

I wonder how colleges functioned before ClipArt and Flickr....surely cost of image databases (which is hardly extortionate nowadays considering microstock sites) is part of the overheads?



Quote: The trouble is people panic first then find out what the law really means.

I agree with that and knee jerks should always be taken with a pinch of salt. But it shows a concern that has not been addressed.


The other part that seems wrong is:

Quote: The Act also fails to prohibit sub-licensing, meaning that once somebody has your work, they can wholesale it. This gives the green light to a new content-scraping industry, an industry that doesn't have to pay the originator a penny. Such is the consequence of "rebalancing copyright", in reality.

A company being able to raid orphan content is one thing. But to then permit them to create effectively a stock site with no overheads and sell the images seems totally wrong, reversing all previous understanding about copyright.




Quote: But the person wanting to use the image does have to do more than the basics to find the owner.

And if they have to do what they do at the moment, then we come back to the issue of 'what problem does this law solve'?
.

pulsar69
pulsar69  101611 forum posts United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
29 Apr 2013 - 5:02 PM

There is an end game to all this that worries me, we will get so protective of our images that huge watermarks and logos will obscure important parts so they cant be stolen, and they will be placed on fortress sites and not shared. I am already thinking this way as will be many others, which sites to take my images back off ... surely this is not what photography and art is about - pandering to the likes of facebook who quite frankly or a temporary blip in the big scheme of things is just not a great idea. No doubts in my mind the government is planning to make a fortune out of this somewhere along the line ...

keith selmes
29 Apr 2013 - 8:14 PM


Quote: 'what problem does this law solve'?

There is a huge amount of material held by museums and universities, and others, for which copyright holders cannot be easily found, or where the copyright status is not known. At the moment, if researchers spend a lot of time and money trying to find a copyright owner, and cannot, they've spent that time and money for nothing, because they still cannot use the material. Under the new provisions they will able to present their evidence and obtain permission to use the material. So, if they find a copyright owner, all well and good, and they can make arrangements with them, but if they don't find one, they haven't wasted the effort. The high risk of investing time and money in a fruitless search has discouraged the use of material that is currently just being stored, and that will now change, encouraging new activity.

keith selmes
29 Apr 2013 - 8:23 PM

On the general matter of the law being misused by taking our images from the internet, I assume diligence would include the use of software searches like tineye and google search by image. Wherever they sourced an image, if it is on your own pages it ought to be found, along with your contact info ? When I've tried them, they've worked pretty well.

The act hasn't been published in its final form yet, so it's hard to see what the procedure would be, but they can't just take an image and claim they searched, it looks as though they have to present their evidence and buy a licence.

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
29 Apr 2013 - 8:37 PM

Keith - yes, I agree.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.