UK government changes IP rules for photographs?

[dreed]

Can someone from the UK comment on this story?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

[Chairman Bill]

We have a bunch of incompetents in government, in hock to corporate interests. Nothing they do surprises me.

[Rob C]

It's just a reflection of 'lowest common denominator people-power' because most already imagine there is no such thing as copyright. Outwith people with jobs in writing, music, photography and the other arts who has the slightest idea of what it is?

As ever, it's only the really wealthy artist who can float a court case, and I don't think many ever do; what the average snapper on the social media would think is possibly even the opposite to that thought here, and more in line with: "wow! someone has used my shot! Yippeee!" followed by a host of e-mails to 'friends' showing it off.

We were on a loser right from the start, way before the Internet and any of that stuff. Artists don't count.

Rob C

[Jeremy Roussak]

We have a bunch of incompetents in government, in hock to corporate interests. Nothing they do surprises me.

We've always had incompetents in Government, Bill, and they've always had in mind the need to advance the vested interests of their supporters, whether those supporters are companies or trade unions.

It's difficult to comment on the Act itself, as there's no easy way to get a copy of it: it's not yet appeared on the usual site (legislation.gov.uk), since it received Royal Assent only a few days ago. When it's available, we will be able to see what the provisions actually are, and when those provisions are brought into force, we'll be able to read the regulations.

I don't agree with the author of the article that a "diligent search" (which is a term unlikely to be defined in the regulations) will have been conducted simply by looking at the metadata. The English courts are likely to find that something considerably more diligent than that would be required before a work could be considered to be orphaned.

Jeremy

[Rhossydd]

I don't agree with the author of the article that a "diligent search" (which is a term unlikely to be defined in the regulations) will have been conducted simply by looking at the metadata. The English courts are likely to find that something considerably more diligent than that would be required before a work could be considered to be orphaned.

That stuck me too.
However it still turns round the argument and it will down to the copyright owner to prove loss and that the alleged offender didn't make a sufficiently diligent search.
It may work well enough if just trying to litigate against a small operation like a small independent company, but trying to take a corporate to court who have big resources and, possibly, a lot to loose might be risky.

The one thing that needs to come out of this mess is getting ISPs offering hosting services to photographers NOT to use auto image serving software that strips off metadata.

[LoisWakeman]

What Bill said. I have no hope of being enlightened after having read the relevant parts of the Act either, since such documents are rarely models of clarity, rather triumphs of legalese and obfuscation.

If I publish a picture on my own Facebook page or web site etc., I assume it is easy to tell it belongs to me, with or without metadata. I guess the main problem comes where such images are reproduced out of context?

[Rhossydd]

If I publish a picture on my own Facebook page or web site etc., I assume it is easy to tell it belongs to me, with or without metadata.

Maybe not as easy as you might think. Lots of sites like Facebook/Flickr strip out metadata and once off the site and been passed around might be wrongly assumed to be orphans.

The interesting test will come if anyone challenges orphan status and the image can be tracked back to copyright via a image search engine like Google or Tin Eye, but the offended failed to use the tool.
Would a court would require such a search as a requirement of due diligence ?

What's really needed is some sort of DRM for images as has been used for music and video.

[dreed]

Who owns a picture? There are watermark technologies out there that do not intrude on the image at all, e.g. Digimarc:
http://www.digimarc.com/docs/dfi-pdf/digimarc-for-images-digital-watermarking-best-practices-guide.pdf
http://www.cs.kent.edu/~farrell/wp2/resource/watermark_faq.html
... what's special about these watermarks is that they survive if someone takes your 1024x768 and turns it into 800x600. As they're also not visible, they can't be photoshop'd out.

Maybe not as easy as you might think. Lots of sites like Facebook/Flickr strip out metadata and once off the site and been passed around might be wrongly assumed to be orphans.

Something that I found interesting is that if I uploaded an image with the copyright field in the image set then facebook would put it in the text box. It would be interesting to get a lawyer to comment on whether or not facebook, et al, are allowed to blank out the copyright field in image data as it is one thing to grant facebook rights to an image as part of the T&C to use the website but another for it to destroy/erase your copyright information.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Not sure if I understand how Digimark works, it seems so invisible that how would anyone know that it was there at all? i.e. where is the deterrence?

[Rhossydd]

i.e. where is the deterrence?

Hopefully on the web site itself to discourage any attempts at theft in the first place.

However it's only a useful technology for certain types of theft. I don't think the digimarc is detectable when images are used in print or other physical uses.

[Rob C]

As I've said before, the only valid way of looking at this is: where the owner of the work in untraceable, then so is useage of said image prohibited. Why should it matter that somebody else might find it convenient to use that image? I'd find somebody else's Cadillac very convenient too, but wouldn't dream of taking it for a spin without permission.

With artists, it's always carts before horses; make 'em suffer, they do nothing but enjoy themselves all day.

Rob C

[dreed]

Hopefully on the web site itself to discourage any attempts at theft in the first place.

However it's only a useful technology for certain types of theft. I don't think the digimarc is detectable when images are used in print or other physical uses.

Digimarc watermarks can be detected with the correct software.

I don't know if Digimarc applies to prints, but I'm pretty sure either it or something like it does survive prints and scanning too.

[Isaac]

As ever, it's only the really wealthy artist who can float a court case, and I don't think many ever do...

Previously on LuLa --

I've yet to actually have a copyright infringement case get to court, but I have settled out of court many times. Why? I try to register all my copyright with the Library of Congress. When the apposing council finds out that the infringement is of a registered copyright, the attorneys tell their clients to settle or else face punitive damages plus attorneys fees (which can be far more than actual damages).

And "Online registration of a basic claim in an original work of authorship (electronic filing)" is currently $35 per batch

[Ben Rubinstein]

What is the UK version of registration then?

[Rob C]

What is the UK version of registration then?

In my time, you didn't have to do anything: it was your right unless you made the artwork on behalf of your employer as part of your job with him. At an earlier period copyright was with the person who commissioned the shoot: the client, unless stipulated otherwise. Or at least, that was the common perception. You shot, got paid, and that was an end of it. Later, with stock coming into view, things changed somewhat. But I certainly never heard of a US-style system where you had to send copies to an official governmental clearing house and pay for the privilege! You already had it.

Rob C

[RSL]

Rob, you don't have to send stuff to the government in order to own a copyright in the U.S. You own the copyright when you create the art, unless, as you say, you created it for a client. In that case the client owns the copyright as soon as you create the object. But you can register the copyright with the government, and it's a lot easier to collect from a copyright violator if your copyright is registered. The government will prove that you own a registered copyright. Without registration you've got to prove it yourself.

[Rob C]

Rob, you don't have to send stuff to the government in order to own a copyright in the U.S. You own the copyright when you create the art, unless, as you say, you created it for a client. In that case the client owns the copyright as soon as you create the object. But you can register the copyright with the government, and it's a lot easier to collect from a copyright violator if your copyright is registered. The government will prove that you own a registered copyright. Without registration you've got to prove it yourself.

But how do you show what you are registering if you don't have to send a copy, Russ?

Rob C

[Rob C]

The signatures are flying in. I added mine a couple of hours ago since when there have been an additional three thousand.

I tried to do the same; eventually I got a line asking if my e-mail confirmation had arrived; it hadn't, so I still don't know if I was successful. I shall try again.

Rob C

[Isaac]

But I certainly never heard of a US-style system where you had to send copies to an official governmental clearing house and pay for the privilege! You already had it.

The privilege is a practical method to seek compensatory damages or statutory damages (and lawyers fees, and possibly an injunction from a federal court) for copyright infringement without being as-you-said a "really wealthy artist who can float a court case".

Registration enables a copyright infringement lawsuit to be filed in federal court, and that's a strong incentive to settle.

But how do you show what you are registering if you don't have to send a copy...

The photographer has "a bundle of rights" without sending a copy of the photo -- but unless a copy of the photo is registered with the copyright office, it might not be practical to seek damages when those rights are infringed.

[RSL]

But how do you show what you are registering if you don't have to send a copy, Russ?

As Isaac said, for registration to be complete you need to send a copy. Nice thing is that you can register a whole bunch of photos with one application. You put the pics on a CD or DVD.