New Copyright Laws Imminent


guy

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 10:09
Have just read the posting on this link and have been outraged by its
content. Please read and be warned.

Guy


http://photothisandthat.co.uk/2013/04/29/is-the-uk-government-trying-to-kill-of-...
shotbyguy
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/guysavin

Algernon

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 10:32
Pure licence to steal. Thanks for the link.

There's also a link on that site to the Sebastião Salgado Genesis Exhibition which considering that he is probably the most famous current Pentax photographer seems to have gone unnoticed on this forum
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

johnriley

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 10:55
Covered on EPZ as a news item. The consequences will unfold in due course.
Best regards, John

Frogherder

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 16:03
Have sent the link - with a request for his input - to my MP

Here's me thinking that JR was the most famous current Pentax photographer


regards
Bernard

judderman62

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 16:05
Algernon wrote:
Pure licence to steal. Thanks for the link.

There's also a link on that site to the Sebastião Salgado Genesis Exhibition which considering that he is probably the most famous current Pentax photographer seems to have gone unnoticed on this forum

shows what I know - he is massively my fave photographer and I had no idea what brand he used...then again it's not something I care about / am intereste din so maybe not such a big surprise thinking it through lol
- -
Mike

Pentax K5 / Pentax K5 11/ Pentax K200D / Canon Rebel T1 i / Canon 650D / Pentax MX-1 / Fuji XF1 /Fuji X 10 / Canon EOS-M / Canon G10/ Pentax Mz-7 x 2

johnriley

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 16:12
Perhaps it's an industry driven rebalancing as many people have been stealing their material for years. Music tracks, video clips on YouTube, many used without the permission of the owners. And many people think it's public domain and perfectly reasonable.

Possibly a music track used in a wedding video, actually without permission of the copyright holder, sometimes even when payment has been made to the photographer.

Now this has been opened up and companies will take advantage, without a doubt. They are supposed to make reasonable enquiries before using material, so not much of a problem if your name is attached to something, say in the Gallery here. You can be traced easily enough. But once shared a few times across the web, the chain can soon be broken.

Time will tell.
Best regards, John

Algernon

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 16:20
judderman62 wrote:

shows what I know - he is massively my fave photographer and I had no idea what brand he used...

He uses a 645D He started with an MX.

You can buy several books covering the exhibition...
£6,000 each

.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 30/04/2013 - 16:46

judderman62

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 16:55
most of his books have been expensive over the years part of the reason I don't own one .

Was lucky one time was in Edinburgh and there just happened to be an exhibition of his work on ... was emotionally draining but superb.
- -
Mike

Pentax K5 / Pentax K5 11/ Pentax K200D / Canon Rebel T1 i / Canon 650D / Pentax MX-1 / Fuji XF1 /Fuji X 10 / Canon EOS-M / Canon G10/ Pentax Mz-7 x 2

johnriley

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 17:38
Sorry, post deleted, this site is strictly no politics.

DaveHolmes

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 17:45
johnriley wrote:
Sorry, post deleted, this site is strictly no politics.

I understand John but given the title of this particular thread it's quite a difficult topic to avoid...
........................................................................
Digital:
Pentax K5- Vivitar 19mm 3.8; FA35mm f2; D-Xenon 100mm macro f2.8; DA50-200mm WR...
Flash:
Yongnuo YN-560; Vivitar 285HV; Cactus V4 triggers...
Film:
Pentax-MX & M50mm f1.4; Spottie & 55mm f1.8; MG & M40mm 2.8...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveholmesphotos/

Snootchies

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 17:54
I dont actually understand what the fuss is about.

As I understood it reading portions of the link, the new act "allows all work considered to be an orphan work to get used for free...Orphan works are those works whose creator cannot be found."

The article goes on to say:

"...the majority of websites, social networks and so on strip out ALL of this (IPTC and metadata) data. Your work, even something you shot a minute ago and uploaded, just became an orphan work. As such, it can now be used for free and for whatever purpose the thief of the image wants to use if for"

How has something I upload to Facebook suddenly become 'orphaned'?

According to the article, orphaned work is where the creator cannot be found. If I upload to Facebook a shot I have taken, I am the creator of that shot. It was clearly me who uploaded it. Therefore it is easy to identify it was me who created it. Why does not having IPTC and Metadata suddenly mean anyone can use an image? As long as it is clear where the image is from/who took it or who owns it etc then that surely means an image cannot be considered 'orphaned'.
Bob

My website (Hadfield Photography)

Pentax Gallery Artist page:link

Flickr Photostream: link

johnriley

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 18:00
I've modified the title, so hopefully that will cover Dave's point.

johnriley

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 18:01
I think Bob is right and we should all expect that taking "reasonable steps" to fine the owner would stretch to reading who had posted something!
Best regards, John

greynolds999

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 18:37
The problem is...

I take a photo and upload it to Pentax User.

Someone likes the shot and saves it to their hard drive. Then uploads it to Facebook. Where someone else copies it and uploads it to their Flickr stream.

That is enough to strip out all the metadata.

So the company who wants to use my photo contacts the Flickr account owner. The account owner says they don't know where it came from so the search has been 'completed'.

So now my photograph is used in a major advertising campaign for a product I strongly disagree with. I can (assuming I find out about it) claim recompense but I cannot stop the image being used.
My Photobucket
Last Edited by greynolds999 on 30/04/2013 - 18:37

pentaxian450

Link Posted 30/04/2013 - 18:43
johnriley wrote:
"reasonable steps" to fine the owner

John, why do you want to "fine" the owner?
Yves (another one of those crazy Canucks)
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.