The Digital Economy Bill : what's yours is ours

Want to be outraged and angry?

Yes?

Then read this ....

http://www.copyrightaction.com/foru...s-non-consensual-photography-in-public?page=1

 

Whilst admitting that part of the fault lies with photographers who supply the initial images I feel that it is the websites such as Flickr and Photopic who have caused this problem - by acting as agents for the display of digital images without protecting the copyright rights of the image maker. The only solution is the drastic one of not supplying images except through accredited agencies who will protect photographers' copyright thus depleting the market to the point where editors will either have to engage staff to take images or liaise with agencies regarding proper fees anfd copyright protection.

It is already accepted that railway magazine publication rates are well below the national newspaper rates but the enthusiast is happy to accept the lower rates which are an effective subsidy to the magazine publisher who would otherwise have to raise the magazine(s) cover price. I know of some photographers who now refuse to send their work to magazines purely because of the low rates and this latest infringement is likely to deter many more from considering sending their work. This will see more of the "usual names" with little incentive to encourage new / younger talent to come forward.

It is - of course - up to the individual photographer to protect his interests but it appears that the greed of the agencies is now being reflected in the reduced opportunities for the photographer.

 

That's got me nice and angry, to the point where I went and signed this:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/copyrightreform/

I don't now how much good it'll do but it's something

 

It's no good blaming the agencies and the magazines, it's the government that passes the bill.

Vote Labour, you know it makes sense.........................or maybe not.

 

But only because the lack of action by the agencies and magazines gives the Goverment the opportunity to act in this way and take advantage of a situation for ulterior motives - such as state censorship.

 

How would this bill have anything to do with state censorship, it's all about loss of copyright.

 

About one third down the page it mentions another change under the part titled The ICO Code whereby anyone photographed in a public place can object to the photographer taking their image, even though it in a public area.

 

The ICO code is a different thing altogether which I agree probably does border on state censorship, however it's not "The Digital Economy Bill" as you can see HERE.

 

They don't even have to object. The photographer cannot take the picture if he feels the subject *might* object. Quite how you work that one out is beyond me. For the time being though this rule will only apply to professional photographers but it's the thin edge of the wedge.

 

‘Orphan copyright' has become a bit of a hysterical internet urban myth. The posting on the link relies on you not reading the actual proposed legislation.

A couple of years ago, there was a bill drafted in the USA. While it had flaws, the claims made by some of its opponents were completely false. The bill never passed into law.

Now the same claims, which were dreamt up to generate opposition to the US bill are being ranted about this bill. If you read the actual bill, it does not “introduce orphan works usage rights, which will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search.” In fact, one of the aims of the bill is to strengthen copyright protection, rather than weaken it.

The posting on the link claims that the bill “will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search. That is potentially about 90% of the photos on the internet.”
And that, “Copyright in photos is essentially going to cease to exist”.

“Suitably negligent search” is a odd phrase. Do you really understand what it means? These words do not appear in the bill at all. But apparently this, by coincidence, is the same phrase used by the opponents of the US bill.

The following paragraph is from the explanatory notes attached to the bill:
“ Topic 2 is online infringement of copyright. Clauses 4 to 17 impose on internet service providers obligations aimed at the reduction of online infringement of copyright. OFCOM is responsible for the specification of the procedural and enforcement aspects of these obligations through the approval or adoption of legally binding codes of practice. Clause 17 gives power to the Secretary of State to make provision by order to amend Part 1 or Part 7 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 for the purpose of preventing or reducing on-line copyright infringement”.

When you look at the actual bill and read it, there is nothing in it about 'orphan copyright'.
One of the things it requires is actually for OFCOM and the ISPs to limit or prohibit Internet access to copyright offenders. This has understandably generated some concerns amongst ISPs. For one thing, they don't want the responsibility. For another, there are due process concerns.

I am not sure whether the poster of the page on the link has read the bill or is just responding to what someone has told him, or maybe he has read some other hysterical postings on the subject. Whichever is the case, it is of no consequence. If you have concerns, I urge you to read the bill and make your own mind up. I think the main thing is that this bill is not what it is being painted here.

 

So yet another thread where a little research would have revealed the facts - thanks for your clarification Graham.