Quantcast

UK Image Copyright Law - Part 2

twist

Distinguished Member
All they are doing besides screwing the working man over (as usual), is proving how out of touch with the real world they are. Clowns.
 

godsakes

Well-known Member
I don't like the idea of it, but equally I don't see the sense in having a a strong copyright law if it is effectively unenforceable.

Is it possible to have somekind of database (or force the image hosting sites) to effectively become a register of sorts for the original copyright holder, in the event of disputes the 1st uploader to the register(s) can claim ownership (putting aisde the issue of how the hell do you register decades old caterlogs of existing work without a fraudster claiming it as their own)
 

simonblue

Distinguished Member
I don't like the idea of it, but equally I don't see the sense in having a a strong copyright law if it is effectively unenforceable.

Is it possible to have somekind of database (or force the image hosting sites) to effectively become a register of sorts for the original copyright holder, in the event of disputes the 1st uploader to the register(s) can claim ownership (putting aisde the issue of how the hell do you register decades old caterlogs of existing work without a fraudster claiming it as their own)
But better to have a law than none at all,and it is enforceable if you catch someone using your work at the moment you can say pay up or take it down.

When the new law come out their will just troll the internet for photos then no doubt if they find something they want to use they will get some computer wizard to strip away metadata then claim it was orphan work :(
 

godsakes

Well-known Member
But better to have a law than none at all,and it is enforceable if you catch someone using your work at the moment you can say pay up or take it down.
In theory yes, but in reality how does it work?

You catch someone using your work on their website, you ask them to take it down or cough up say £50-100 royalty fee. They refuse, what then? do you contact a solicitor who charges £200+ per hour for a consolation? is there a way of getting their web host to pull their site (at no cost to you), if so what's the process? if there's no cost effective way for you to enforce it are you really protected by the law?
 

shotokan101

Distinguished Member
A lot of insurance policies have a for of legal dispute cover as an inexpensive option these days - not sure if it's caught up with this sort of scenario yet though...

Jim
 

simonblue

Distinguished Member
In theory yes, but in reality how does it work?

You catch someone using your work on their website, you ask them to take it down or cough up say £50-100 royalty fee. They refuse, what then? do you contact a solicitor who charges £200+ per hour for a consolation? is there a way of getting their web host to pull their site (at no cost to you), if so what's the process? if there's no cost effective way for you to enforce it are you really protected by the law?
It does work speaking to a few pros,they do take it down or pay up its alway been part of being a pro keeping an eye on your work.

Whatever way you look at it a law that can be made enforceable,is better than none at all :)
 

godsakes

Well-known Member
A lot of insurance policies have a for of legal dispute cover as an inexpensive option these days - not sure if it's caught up with this sort of scenario yet though...

Jim
Can't say i've looked into it but i would be wary of the types legal disputes a general home insurance policy would cover.
 

godsakes

Well-known Member
It does work speaking to a few pros,they do take it down or pay up its alway been part of being a pro keeping an eye on your work.
Not really the same thing if the other side complies, the law hasn't had to be 'enforced' per se. Can you tell me what these pros do when their requests are rejected or ignored?

Whatever way you look at it a law that can be made enforceable,is better than none at all :)
I'm sure it helps with the bluster when the initial confrontation is made but where that fails what then?
 

simonblue

Distinguished Member
Not really the same thing if the other side complies, the law hasn't had to be 'enforced' per se. Can you tell me what these pros do when their requests are rejected or ignored?



I'm sure it helps with the bluster when the initial confrontation is made but where that fails what then?
When I was a pro years ago I had an agent and believe they don't give up easily.

Let put this way the last person who try screw me on the Internet ref a sale,I think he lasted 2 days before he caved in :devil:
 

mucca_D

Well-known Member
Not really the same thing if the other side complies, the law hasn't had to be 'enforced' per se. Can you tell me what these pros do when their requests are rejected or ignored?
You take them to court and win. They know this and will cave unless stupid
 

godsakes

Well-known Member
You take them to court and win. They know this and will cave unless stupid
They also know the moment you consult a lawyer you'll come out poorer than when you started, even if you win. Assuming you're suing for financial gain (as opposed to revenge) and can add up they can assume it's all huff and puff and call your bluff.
 

AMc

Distinguished Member
Just had this response to the petition - Stop Legalised Theft of Copyrighted Works - e-petitions

This e-petition has received the following response:

As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:

This petition appears to address a measure in the recent Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERR Act) concerning orphan works. In fact, the Act ensures that the work of photographers and illustrators cannot simply be taken by others through a number of strong protections for creators’ interests.

Orphan works are copyright works (such as books, photographs, films and music) for which one or more of the copyright owners cannot be found. Without the permission of all the rights-holders these works can only be used lawfully to a very limited extent. There are millions of such works held in the nation’s museums, archives and libraries.

With regard to the removal of data about the ownership of the copyright work (metadata), it is already a civil infringement under UK copyright law to knowingly and without authority strip metadata from a copyright work. If the infringer communicates the work to the public it may be a criminal offence. It may also be a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006 if the infringer claims to be the rights holder.

The Government wants to enable these culturally and economically valuable works to be used while protecting the interests of the missing rights-holders. Section 77 of the ERR Act contains powers to allow the Secretary of State to appoint a body to license the use of orphan works.

Any person wishing to use an orphan work will need to apply to the government-appointed authorising body for a licence. As part of that process they must undertake a diligent search for the rights-holder which will then be verified by the Government appointed independent authorising body. The absence or removal of metadata does not in itself make a work “orphan” or allow its use under the orphan works scheme.

Only once the diligent search for the rights-holder has been verified by the authorising body and after the licence fee has been paid will a licence to use the orphan work be issued. Licences will be for specified purposes and subject to a licence fee which is payable up-front at a rate appropriate to the type of work and type of use. The licence fee will then be held for the missing rights-holder to claim.

If the work is not genuinely orphan then the rights-holder should be found by the search. If the search is not properly diligent, no licence will be issued.

The proposal for an orphan works scheme was the subject of a formal written consultation and extensive informal consultation with all stakeholders, including several representatives from photography organisations. There were a number of genuine concerns which have been addressed by various safeguards, such as the verification of the diligent search and the requirement for remuneration to be set aside. However, some media articles have contained a number of inaccuracies about the scheme.

Under these powers copyright will continue to be automatic and there is no need to register a work in order for it to enjoy copyright protection. The powers do not allow any person simply to use a photograph or any other work if they cannot find the rights-holder.

A Working Group has been set up by the industry-led Copyright Hub to consider the issue of metadata and try to obtain cross-industry agreement on ensuring that metadata is not removed from copyright works.

This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.
 

MemX

Well-known Member
Just had this response to the petition - Stop Legalised Theft of Copyrighted Works - e-petitions

Any person wishing to use an orphan work will need to apply to the government-appointed authorising body for a licence. As part of that process they must undertake a diligent search for the rights-holder which will then be verified by the Government appointed independent authorising body. The absence or removal of metadata does not in itself make a work “orphan” or allow its use under the orphan works scheme.

Only once the diligent search for the rights-holder has been verified by the authorising body and after the licence fee has been paid will a licence to use the orphan work be issued. Licences will be for specified purposes and subject to a licence fee which is payable up-front at a rate appropriate to the type of work and type of use. The licence fee will then be held for the missing rights-holder to claim.

If the work is not genuinely orphan then the rights-holder should be found by the search. If the search is not properly diligent, no licence will be issued.
I've literally only just seen this :rolleyes:

So the above means that every single image claimed as an 'orphan' will be required to have "a diligent search for the rights-holder which will then be verified by the Government appointed independent authorising body"...

Surely that will be, potentially, thousands of images? :confused:

If so, I don't see how a "Government appointed independent authorising body" with clearly limited resources will be anywhere near able to confirm for certain that a "diligent search" has taken place :rolleyes:

I presume that the fees that have been paid to this "authorising body" that are then held for the copyright owner to claim (if one exists) will simply be sitting in an account raking in interest for the government until they're paid out to the owner (if ever)?

What is the time limit for holding the fees? Where do they go after that?


This just seems a bureaucratic unnecessity that will do nothing but encourage sloppy 'searching' for rights owners as long as the 'searcher' pays a bit of cash :rolleyes:
 

Trending threads

Latest News

Klipsch updates Heritage speaker range
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
TCL hits 32 million TV sales in 2019
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sharp 4K OLED TV to launch in spring 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 27th January 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Raidho TD Series loudspeakers arrive in UK
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom