New Copyright Laws Imminent

Sorry john forgot

No problem. I've also moved this now to General Chat.

Not the way I read things. If I find out after my image has been used (once I see it on a billboard!) I cannot stop it being used. I have to prove that I am the copyright owner then claim from the 'Copyright Tribunal'. But I don't get to negotiate. I get the 'standard' fee.

However, there is a slightly mitigating point which has been missed: Companies cannot use the images for free - they still have to pay the 'Copyright Tribunal' (ie the Government) for use of the image.

Indeed, you've always had to prove your the copyright owner

... but the way I see it once you can prove you're the copyright owner you CAN stop it being used.

The way I read this new bill is that it allows people to use 'orphaned' works for a standard fee. Once a copyright owner comes forward and proves copyright it then ceases to be an orphaned work and then normal laws/regulations apply.

Could be wrong though.

But you miss the point. It's simply that I cannot change the past.

I would not allow any of my photographs to be used by a company which I considered unethical and at the moment if they asked to use one of my images I would refuse.

But now, they could use my image and although (assuming I found out later) I could claim a fee and tell them to stop, but I could not undo what they had already done.

I think any organization that has the cash to commission new images "just like" an orphaned work would find they are on dodgy ground in not doing this. It would be just seen as lazy by a court and foreseeable that the originator of the work may not share the outlook of the organization.

A little like radio DJ's might now foresee the likelihood that a prank might tip a vulnerable person over the edge to suicide.

Its not so much copyright as defamation. Would the originator of this work be for example pro-fascist? Why was it used to promote Sunderland FC's manager?

Whatever the inadequacies of the legislation, the notion of the 'orphan' highlights a genuine problem in need of a solution. It is by no means easy in every circumstance to trace a rights owner. With books, eg, this has meant that the world was denied their benefit at precisely the time when, with the arrival of digitisation, they could realistically be circulated again for public benefit. Hence the rise of the useful notion of the 'orphan'. Its use seems to me less compelling in the sphere of photography, though it is an extension of the same principle. Given the ease of replication, photographers worried about misuse of their material should take steps, such as watermarking, to make such exploitation too tiresome for a third party to contemplate.

Commercial use cannot be done without a model or property release, see my earlier post.

Cabstar, is that a response to my post? I don't doubt what you say. I'm not sure it modifies anything I've said. Why go to law when a watermark or similar may prevent the necessity in the first place. And in the case you mention, as so often, it seems to have been pure chance that revealed the breach of rights.

Tracing the owner of a work is as simple as using www.tineye.com or a similar web resource. Try it and see. You can even rapidly toggle between images to prove they are the same.

I didn't miss that point ( and agree as I'd be mighty annoyed if one of my images was used for something I considered immoral ) I was just talking about the copyright issues and proving it thus disabling it from being an Orphan Image.

I just tested tineye as I know of one image of mine that's being used by a Dubai Tourist Website, and it didn't find it.

Nothing is infallible and it doesn't find everything, but it does find an amazing number of matches. There was a serious matter that I had to look into and it was very helpful in locating matches from all over the web.

Not 100% of them though.

No it was a reply to this

What about photographers who licence work out, i for example cannot watermark my i ages that get used on say the Sun's website, those images also contain no metadata, so a quick right click, quick tineye check and payment to the governments new orphan works honesty box and you have yourself a cheap image.

And newspapers like e mail that are well known for stealing images from facebook, twitter and other social networking sites, marking them in some cases (c) the internet sigh, will have a field day when this legislation comes in.

I'll try some more later