Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Time to shut the stable door on a horse that's long since bolted and is out of control.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
There is a complete answer to this. If you have an image with any commercial value at all, don't put it on the net any more than you would pin a print to a public notice board. Unless you don't mind it being purloined.
The orphan aspect is a red herring. As has been said, if someone removes the exif and copyright information or stamp and publishes it on their site, it is from that point on an orphan.
You could argue that the person who steals it and uses it for their own purpose has not used due diligence but what does that mean? To establish whether due diligence was used or not requires a lawyer and a court.
How will any normal photographer justify spending hundreds or thousands of pounds on a lawyer to prove that a picture which would have sold for a few quid has been nicked? It's out of proportion.
The message of this bill long term is, if you don't want your work stolen, don't display it publicly in a commercially useful form. It's common sense, anyway.
Using that logic you may as well close this site down now.....if you don't want to be mugged don't go outside blah blah blah
Theft should never be excused in this way.
Quote: if you don't want to be mugged don't go outside blah blah blah
That has always been the case with the internet and always will be, bit it is not really the concern that people have in this case. The proposed law is intended to simplify use of images that have no owners but the danger is that it offers a defence to people who knowingly take a copyrighted image, or can't be bothered to do proper checks on ownsership before using it.
Quote: Using that logic you may as well close this site down now.....if you don't want to be mugged don't go outside blah blah blah
Theft should never be excused in this way.
I'm not excusing it, I'm talking about reality. A person who puts a picture with financial value in a public place is liable to have it taken. What I said was, if you don't want that to happen either don't put it there or not in a commercially usable publishable form.
How does that excuse theft? I really don't blah blah blah, I try to think about what I write before posting it.
What you are saying amounts to 'this shouldn't happen'. So what? it does. It cannot realistically be stopped and this new law will facilitate it.
I know there is a tiny risk of being mugged when I go out. I take that risk knowingly. I do not don a solid gold Rolex and pin it to my lapel. I should be able to but would you?
I recall a time when it was clear that digital photography would one day be the norm and there were some 'proffesional' photographers who moaned and whined about replacing expensive equipment and, even on this site, were told to adapt or die and 'get with the times' and isnt great that we 'enthusiasts' can more easily join the paid brigade.
The big problem is that it's so easy to "orphanize" an image by just by stripping the exif data. The image can then be used quite legally after putting a few pence into a government kitty. The legitimate owner gets nothing unless he/she notices the pic has been used and makes a claim that will probably cost more in admin expenses than it yields in fees.
One RPS colleague does high-end aerial photography and he's worried because it costs him a lot of money to create his images and he has to sell them for a high price to cover his costs. He doesn't want people to be able to use his work for a few pence in the pound so he's relocated his business to Germany.
I thought the UK was a signatory to the Berne Convention.
How sad... The more you work, the less you get. The less you work..the more you get. Where is the logic in that!??
[link removed by epz]
and the point of the link, Magic Rainbow?
The Metro article this morning dislikes the rights grab http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/29/twitter-users-stripped-of-rights-to-own-snaps-3698502/
One quote - "As ‘metadata’ showing who uploaded photos is routinely stripped out by Facebook, Twitter and Flickr, companies can hijack the pictures and honestly claim their origin was impossible to trace."
It still suggests to me that news agencies can almost get rid of their photo reporters and crowd source a handful of twitter or FB images to report on popular events without paying them anything.
It can only mean that the gov is making laws to give away what most people did not think they had for the benefit of a few organisations.
See more - http://www.stop43.org.uk/
the Intellectual Property Office said: ‘The powers are intended to remove unnecessary barriers to the legitimate use of works, while preserving the interests of rights holders.’
Does this says if its tricky to find an owner i can keep anything i find.
If Facebook et al is stripping EXIF etc is this not the same as laundering money or handling stolen goods if its then passed to another party?
Will ephotozine and facebook look like this soon:
part of a pic from Getty and one from the sun looked up today.
Quote: It still suggests to me that news agencies can almost get rid of their photo reporters and crowd source a handful of twitter
To a point. But recently, when the accident happened with the balloon trips at Luxor, I had some personal library stuff which I regarded as holiday snaps. I uploaded a couple to my agent and did nicely from The Guardian and a few American publications.
The difference between a guy with an iPhone and a photo reporter is that the reporter know what is news and what he has that is relevant to it and the guy with iPhone doesn't. If I contact my agent about something, he knows that I have track record and understand the media and what they look for and I wouldn't bother him (them) unnecessarily.
I'd wager than many photographers here have better and more relevant pictures of Luxor ballooning than I do. But I know who to contact and what they want. That was my lifetime's work.
Ask me to cover a wedding and I'd be at a loss.
News agencies will always need professionals. It's just that the professionals have to work harder, learn more, be faster than the handfulls on Twitter.
Look at it another way. I go to see music gigs. Do I pay to see people who say on Twitter that they are great musicians? No, I pay to see people with a track record, who have done the work and paid the dues.
Photography is unique in that a person with a camera can imagine that if they buy the same camera as Cartier-Bresson, Don McCullin whomsoever, they can produce images as good as that person's. Who believes that if they buy a Fender Stratocaster they can play like Eric Clapton except an idiot?
We can all get lucky sometime as some twitter poster can. But it is rare and any news organisation that trawls Twitter for its material will soon find that using professionals is faster and cheaper.
Typical Tory legislation. Ill thought out, hurried through and not one of them has any idea of what the result will be.
There's no point bringing party politics into it, New Labour fluffed around delaying the issue for several years, then rammed through the Digital Economy Bill, to which the description "Ill thought out, hurried through and not one of them has any idea of what the result will be" would be very apt.
What the current government needs to do rapidly is bring legislation up to date for the current era, regardless which party it is, and whichever party will get the same diverse criticisms from all interested factions.
This looks to have more potential than previous foul ups on both sides of the Atlantic. The problem is the regulations are not detailed, the upside is they can be altered rapidly in line with changing technology. The question is, how to make sure it's done right. Something of this sort is going to happen eventually, it's a question of when and how, not whether, and we may as well stop faffing about and get it done.
Jack All Tog mentions Alamy. It will be interesting to see what protection Alamy will give to its contributors. If it is insufficient to stop theft of images, Alamy may as well shut down its business now.
Quote: . A person who puts a picture with financial value in a public place is liable to have it taken.
Does the Alamy web site count as a 'Public Place'? It is available to anybody who signs up, photographer or purchaser so I wonder does the signing up then make it a private place? If it does then the same applies to EPZ.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st March 2014 - 31st March 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View March's Photo Month Calendar