'free' copyright?

netronelson

Established Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
679
Reaction score
131
Points
244
Age
48
Hi,

Wondered if you guys had heard of this?

(lights touch paper and walks away...)

N.

Photographers Fear Non-Commercial Copyright Exceptions




LNB News 24/11/2009 54

Published Date
24 November 2009

Jurisdiction
UK

Related Legislation
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Related Digests



Report: Digital Britain White Paper - Update 30 June 2009 - Actions and Implementations LNB News 30/06/2009 31; Digital Economy Bill [HL] LNB News 20/11/2009 14

Abstract



The government are likely to exempt non-commercial photographs from copyright protection as introduced in the Digital Britain Bill. Co-editor of the British Journal of Photography Olivier Laurent says to Greg Bousfield the industry is against the changes

Analysis


The government will introduce collective agreements to pay some compensation for copyright protection cases and also ease copyright protection for non-commercial use of photographs despite not addressing the matter in the new Digital Economy Bill (the Bill). The industry also fears the introduction of sweeping copyright exceptions.

"Changes to the current regime will nevertheless be made which may mean non-commercial users will not have to pay for photographs or ask to use them," says Olivier Laurent, co-editor of the British Journal of Photography.

The Bill is based on a 2009 Intellectual Property Office (IPO) report, © the way ahead: A strategy for copyright in the digital age, part of the IPO's consultation response to recommendations in the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property 2006. The Gowers Report considered introducing more exceptions (to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) for all media of format shifting (private copying) and for parody, caricature and pastiche, as well as for education, libraries and archives, and research and private study.

But the IPO goes further, arguing because it is often too difficult for non-commercial users to identify or find rightsholders, non-commercial users should not have to seek permission or pay for personal use of individual copyright works. The Bill already includes provisions to deal with orphan works, works whose rights holders are unknown or cannot be traced. The British Library estimates about 40 per cent of all creative works are orphan works. The legislation would allow licensing bodies and other third parties such as museums to apply directly to the secretary of state for a non-exclusive licence to use these works.

However, the IPO is vague about how it wants to change the copyright regime for non-commercial use, Laurent says. "The IPO says 'at no point is it envisioned an individual will be able to do whatever they wish with copyright material'. Instead, an individual would be able to do more with work they have legitimately purchased or obtained."

The IPO says a more detailed proposal is not possible because the matter will be decided at European level, "a cop-out," Laurent says.

"Basically, the changes could mean, for example, married couples would be legally entitled to make prints of their own wedding photos for their friends, whereas now copyright law requires them to do this through the photographer. Of course a much more extreme situation would be where a photographer's work is reproduced a huge number of times on a non-commercial basis throughout the internet."

To provide some compensation for photographers for the loss of control over their copyright the government is likely to oversee the establishment of wider collective licensing (collection society) arrangements. This means photographers will be paid a small fee to compensate for non-commercial usage. "The government has been talking of a collective licensing model based on the music or film industries, for photography. This has been opposed by the industry because photography has a wider variety of licensing scenarios."

But a separate system for photography appears unlikely, he says. "But at least it means photographers can recoup some of the revenue lost by photographers for non-commercial usage."

If you have any comments about this or any other news item or feature, please respond via e-mail to: [email protected]

The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom