Topic: You no longer own your own photos in the UK once uploaded to the interwebs.
Anonymous A started this discussion 3.8 years ago#27,656
> The Act contains changes to UK copyright law which permit the commercial exploitation of images where information identifying the owner is missing, so-called "orphan works", by placing the work into what's known as "extended collective licensing" schemes. Since most digital images on the internet today are orphans - the metadata is missing or has been stripped by a large organisation - millions of photographs and illustrations are swept into such schemes.
> "People can now use stuff without your permission," explained photo rights campaigner Paul Ellis. "To stop that you have to register your work in a registry - but registering stuff is an activity that costs you time and money. So what was your property by default will only remain yours if you take active steps, and absorb the costs, if it is formally registered to you as the owner."
The Truth !XRJSgJUbuM joined in and replied with this 3.8 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#412,963
Where does it say that?
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs joined in and replied with this 3.8 years ago, 22 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#413,270
You forget the part that states a "diligent search" has to be performed and an independent body must agree this search was diligent. The part about having to register your images is just his assumption not actually part of the Bill.
Anonymous B replied with this 3.8 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#413,271
@previous (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
Omitting key facts that make something seem less scary is a key part of professional journalism. Thanks.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3.8 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#413,281
uh, that applies to the entire internet, not just UK internet
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3.8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#413,284
Wow, anyone can use any image I put on the Internet for whatever they want? Even if I spent time and effort creating that image?
Uhhh, I pretty much have been operating under this assumption for as long as I have been using the Internet...
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3.8 years ago, 54 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#413,287
England - 0
America - 20
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3.8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#413,288
I am writing because I am appalled at what the government is doing to our rights in the ERRB (Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill). Why the ERRB by the way? Why canâ€™t copyright be dealt with properly in a proper Copyright Bill? Iâ€™m told everyone will be able to get their hands on our so-called â€œorphansâ€ so libraries and museums can publish old photographs whose authors have long been forgotten. But never mind whatâ€™s lying around on dusty old shelves, what about the millions of â€œorphansâ€ that are being created now every day!
Why? Because social media, and everyone else for that matter routinely strip our names and contact details from our digital files. They simply should not be allowed to get away with this. They can because our government refuses to give us the right to our names by our pictures (Moral rights). So now commercial organisations will be allowed to make money from our â€œorphansâ€, but not us, the creators.
This legislation should never have been even considered without first giving us our moral rights, and is contrary to our rights under the Berne Convention. Why the rush? A scheme, the Copyright Hub â€“ a scheme backed by the government â€“ is being developed to ensure that those who wish to find our pictures can not only do so quickly online, but also find the contact details of the picturesâ€™ owners. You are about to put the cart before the horse.
Iâ€™m told the real reason for speed is that â€œreleasingâ€ orphans will create growth. We all understand the need for growth. But whereâ€™s the evidence? The seemingly impressive financial figures presented originally in the Hargreaves Review have mysteriously had to be revised â€“ down by 97%! Which now apparently amount to no more than 80p per taxpayer per year. Given the damage this legislation will now cause to taxpaying creators, damage no-one has so far taken into account, the effect of this legislation on economic growth will in fact be negative.
Itâ€™s not too late to think again!
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3.8 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#413,298
if what you're posting is worth anything creatively, watermark it
if its not, then why slap your info on it? silly deal
DNSnQQper !Xus02GQ23o joined in and replied with this 3.8 years ago, 19 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#413,453
All they have to do is have people that they pay under the table to take stuff they want to steal, strip out the info, edit out the watermarks, and post it online, feeding them the content they want to steal.
Does this mean that UK based companies can steal peoples work and sell it worldwide, or can they only get away with selling stolen work inside the UK? Will there now be UK based 'cropshops' that steal artwork and photography and sell it all around the world?
There is no reason for this kind of image theft. If you are inspired by an image but can't find the source to license it, create or commission something original to fill the same role.