Save 69% on inPixio Photo Studio 11 Ultimate (discount applied at checkout)

The Digital Economy Bill : what's yours is ours


mad-dogs 18 2.2k England
15 Feb 2010 3:41PM
cameracat 17 8.6k 61 Norfolk Island
15 Feb 2010 4:47PM
They have really got to go, Although I fear its too late....Sad
keith selmes 17 7.4k 1 United Kingdom
15 Feb 2010 5:25PM
It probably doesn't matter who is in government, the laws have to be changed to keep up with technology, and whoever does it will probably make a hash of it, at least first time round. If there is a change of government, the other lot will be implementing this, and I would trust them even less than the current incumbents. If big business interests are trying to skew legislation to suit themselves, would a Conservative Government really be better ?

When we discussed this a while back I had been looking at the reports and forthcoming legislation, and did not see too much for photographers to worry about. However from reading the Copyright Action pages yesterday (when a link appeared on photo.net) there seem to be some gaps in the bill which will be filled in later, and where there aren't specific references to photography there seem to be plenty of opportunity to include photography in the new rules without parliamentary discussion.
So as much as I think CA are exaggerating and somewhat alarmist in their language, there could well be some real problems looming - which could be brought in quite surreptitiously if allowed to.

Doesn't make a lot of sense though - I have read the DPA a couple of times, and we've had discussions abut it here - simply storing street photos of people on a computer, or publishing them, shouldn't be enough to qualify for DPA problems, unless you relate them to some more specific informtion.
Nigeyboy 13 1.0k United Kingdom
15 Feb 2010 6:38PM
So go back to shooting film - negative = ownership? Surely easier to prove than with digital.
keith selmes 17 7.4k 1 United Kingdom
17 Feb 2010 9:38PM
After you've scanned it, and passed it to your friends, family, client, publisher, website, or whatever, you're no better off, possibly worse if you haven't added IPTC info.
samfurlong 15 2.5k United Kingdom
17 Feb 2010 11:02PM
Make sure that any images you email to friends / post on forums / send to clients have your contact details embedded in the metadata. Also make sure that it clearly states that any use of the image will incurr a fee...

THere is a clause in the act which goes something along the lines of 'reasonable attempts' to trace the owner of a work.

Metadata is THE industry standard way of captioning images and no court in the land will believe someone who says they didn't think to look there, it is the FIRST place that anyone working with images would look for the photographers information..

Don't get me wrong the act stinks to high heaven but ensuring your images have the relevant information embedded in the metadata will ensure that no one can claim they 'didn't know who the photographer was'.. and thus will ensure you can assert your rights and get paid.
Just Jas 19 26.3k 1 England
17 Feb 2010 11:16PM
Come back Guy Fawkes - all is forgiven! Smile
Overread 12 4.1k 19 England
17 Feb 2010 11:20PM
But sam stripping meta data is a simple act - it takes all of a few moments of time to strip the data (heck save for web in photoshop (Even in elements) will do the job for you). Heck most people posting without e2 on EPZ have to save for web to get their images small enough for the filesize limits.
Just Jas 19 26.3k 1 England
17 Feb 2010 11:44PM

Quote:...and bans non-consensual photography in public


So PC49 and his colleagues will no longer need to misuse anti-terrorist laws and paedophilia scaremongering to stop photographers in their innocent activities?

It will be against the new rules of the above bill to use a camera in public anyway?

What will be next?

Licensing of cameras?
Toonman 14 1.4k 2 England
18 Feb 2010 6:55AM
Boxing mine up for E-Bay. Sad
samfurlong 15 2.5k United Kingdom
18 Feb 2010 9:24AM

Quote:But sam stripping meta data is a simple act - it takes all of a few moments of time to strip the data (heck save for web in photoshop (Even in elements) will do the job for you). Heck most people posting without e2 on EPZ have to save for web to get their images small enough for the filesize limits.




Of course there are those who will actively strip the metadata but most people who rip images off the web WILL pay up if you make contact, perhaps resorting to a stiff, legal looking letter if they are a bit difficult.
Most are not actively out to rip you off, they simply don't regard it as the serious matter that it is and either think you won't mind or just go ahead and use it, thinking 'oh well I might get away with it'. If you get in touch many will simply pay up provided you are reasonable. Many will look in the metadata and if it is empty think 'oh well I tried, but I'm not going to try too hard.'
If someone does not want to pay up and you decide it's not worth pursuing as they were only (say) using it on a club / presonal website that does not make any / much money then you can insist they remove it. Even if they claim it was an 'orhpan' before, you have now asserted your rights so now they DO know who owns it and must follow your direction to pay up or remove it.

With regards to the save for web function, yes it does strip metadata but CS4 has an option to leave it intact, it only adds a couple of kb. For those without CS4, it is a simple proceedure to re apply it with a browser such as bridge, photo mechanic, pfotostation etc.. For EPZ just make sure you save at about 97kb to allow a couple of kb for the metadata and still keep it under the 100kb limit.
Britman 15 1.7k England
18 Feb 2010 6:52PM
To me the very lack of responses to this thread shows why this bill is going to go through without any serious challenges, people either don't care or cannot be bothered to fight for their rights.

Just Jas, alas I wish I could laugh at the idea of a licence but I fear it's going that way.

Cameracat, won't make a blind bit of difference, even if another party got it this bill is here to stay.
Overread 12 4.1k 19 England
18 Feb 2010 6:58PM
The problem is most amateurs don't know its a risk to stop it - that and I think a lot of photographers are feeling rather downtrodden by government as it is. Besides these days it appears that no matter the public will the government will still go ahead with its moves regardless.
The only defence is to vote for the other side - and these days they do just about the same anyway.
keith selmes 17 7.4k 1 United Kingdom
18 Feb 2010 10:06PM

Quote:It will be against the new rules of the above bill to use a camera in public anyway?
Thats a separate issue. Its not the Digital Economy Bill, its a possible change in guidelines to existing laws.

The admin at Copyright Action has apologised for causing confusion by mixing two issues in one article.

"Just to be entirely clear, the above article deals with two separate issues emanating from two different government departments."

the relevant issue for street photography would be

"The Information Commissioners Office evolving interpretation of privacy law as it relates to data protection and to photography in public places. No new law is involved here"
Just Jas 19 26.3k 1 England
19 Feb 2010 10:59AM

Quote:It probably doesn't matter who is in government, the laws have to be changed to keep up with technology


Well, let's apply the same approach to music copyright then. Let everybody download and distribute what music they like when and where they like.

I guess that Sony and the like would have something to say about that.

Not that I am overmuch worried about Sony - who sell the gear that enables Joe Soap to rip off music tracks and then complain when he does.

I guess that taking on the powerful concerns such as Sony would be a trifle different to taking on the relatively toothless photo associations.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.