Upcoming changes to UK Photo laws
Posted 19/02/2010 - 17:37
Link
Rather unpleasant reading. I may have to change my stance on watermarking. Only on the decent stuff, of course. Nothing bugs me more than a watermark on a crap photo.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Posted 19/02/2010 - 18:16
Link
Nothing this government does surprises me any more.
Mandelson, he's someone you'd never get tired of kicking.
Mandelson, he's someone you'd never get tired of kicking.
Posted 19/02/2010 - 18:22
Link
I've always wander how these laws work. Since I'm in the Netherlands I don't fall under your laws I believe but what about my photos...
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 19/02/2010 - 18:42
Link
Same law was tried in the US. it didn't make it over there if I am correct.
I am not surprised it is also tried in the UK.
Three things can be done to cover the "Problem" if this bill makes it. Where ever you live.
First;
Make sure every picture you put on the web has full ITPC info embedded.
ITPC meaning in lame terms: About You. Including copyright and personal info.
Removing this data from a picture(which is possible) is seen as a violation and infringement of copyright by law. There are a lot of DAM software programs who make this quite easy.
Second; Only put low rez files on the net. Max. width 800 pixels and at 72 ppi.
If you have the original you will always be covered.
And if you really want to be safe: Register your work with the National Copyright Office. You have to pay for it, but than you have the best legal insurance for your pictures you could need.
Obviously......all this won't stop any body of snatching your pictures from the net.
But it will create a firm and solid base of protection when ever you have to go to court because some firm tries to get hold of your work to make them some money.
Which in general is the first moment you might notice that somebody stole your picture.
I am not surprised it is also tried in the UK.
Three things can be done to cover the "Problem" if this bill makes it. Where ever you live.
First;
Make sure every picture you put on the web has full ITPC info embedded.
ITPC meaning in lame terms: About You. Including copyright and personal info.
Removing this data from a picture(which is possible) is seen as a violation and infringement of copyright by law. There are a lot of DAM software programs who make this quite easy.
Second; Only put low rez files on the net. Max. width 800 pixels and at 72 ppi.
If you have the original you will always be covered.
And if you really want to be safe: Register your work with the National Copyright Office. You have to pay for it, but than you have the best legal insurance for your pictures you could need.
Obviously......all this won't stop any body of snatching your pictures from the net.
But it will create a firm and solid base of protection when ever you have to go to court because some firm tries to get hold of your work to make them some money.
Which in general is the first moment you might notice that somebody stole your picture.
Posted 19/02/2010 - 19:43
Link
How will that stand with the other countries in the European Union? Their photographer will lose as much as the British ones.
Yves (another one of those crazy Canucks)
Posted 19/02/2010 - 19:43
Link
I have read the entire piece and its comments, but apart from that I know nothing more about this issue than the original copyright law.
It strikes me that there is no possible excuse for using an image that doesn't belong to you. IT MUST BE PROTECTED BY DEFAULT! as is currently the case.
What possible excuse can there be for creating a law which condones the appropriation of someone else's work for your own ends?
If it's not yours and you haven't asked the owner, then it's stealing.
It strikes me that there is no possible excuse for using an image that doesn't belong to you. IT MUST BE PROTECTED BY DEFAULT! as is currently the case.
What possible excuse can there be for creating a law which condones the appropriation of someone else's work for your own ends?
If it's not yours and you haven't asked the owner, then it's stealing.
Posted 19/02/2010 - 19:55
Link
So it will be OK for a British company to steal anyone's photos regardless of which country that photographer is from, and the copyright laws of the photographer's country? What are the chances an Australian, American or even a Dutch person will spot that their photo has been used in this way and be able to claim their fee?
I hope you are all writing to your MPs about this.
And about what is effectively a ban on street photography in the UK.
I hope you are all writing to your MPs about this.
And about what is effectively a ban on street photography in the UK.
Posted 19/02/2010 - 20:11
Link
I will be taking up my pen and writing to my MP for the first time.
The one overriding quality of the Brits hostorically, is they don't stand for this sort of thing. I get the feeling it is just so much easier to brainwash people in this day and age.
The anti-terrorism argument is being used for everything these days. The only people winning are the government and the terrorists.
I feel a facebook campaign coming on.... it worked for the Christmas number 1 !
The one overriding quality of the Brits hostorically, is they don't stand for this sort of thing. I get the feeling it is just so much easier to brainwash people in this day and age.
The anti-terrorism argument is being used for everything these days. The only people winning are the government and the terrorists.
I feel a facebook campaign coming on.... it worked for the Christmas number 1 !
Posted 19/02/2010 - 21:39
Link
Gwyn wrote:
So it will be OK for a British company to steal anyone's photos regardless of which country that photographer is from, and the copyright laws of the photographer's country? What are the chances an Australian, American or even a Dutch person will spot that their photo has been used in this way and be able to claim their fee?
I hope you are all writing to your MPs about this.
And about what is effectively a ban on street photography in the UK.
I really don't know, I believe that in which country the server is based that those laws or on it.So it will be OK for a British company to steal anyone's photos regardless of which country that photographer is from, and the copyright laws of the photographer's country? What are the chances an Australian, American or even a Dutch person will spot that their photo has been used in this way and be able to claim their fee?
I hope you are all writing to your MPs about this.
And about what is effectively a ban on street photography in the UK.
So you can make photos in the Netherlands and then you fall under Dutch laws but if you upload the photos to flickr that's based in America I believe that then falls under American law.
But then we have the UK law that enables companies to use photos if they can't find the owner...
It's truly a big and complicated maze, are there any international laws about this which we can fall back to?
The international copyright law maybe?
It looks like it falls under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 19/02/2010 - 21:47
Link
Quote:
The anti-terrorism argument is being used for everything these days. The only people winning are the government and the terrorists.
Neither issue has anything to do with terrorism. The first issue is a relaxing of the copyright laws re unattributed material published on the web. I don't think the current law is enforced or enforceable anyway, and whether you live in the UK or not, the only way to prevent web-theft is to follow Martin's advice.The anti-terrorism argument is being used for everything these days. The only people winning are the government and the terrorists.
The second issue stems from our paranoid obsession (sometimes justified) with identity theft, or data privacy. The legislation is there to protect our private data from misuse, and there is nothing there about photography.
Quote:
There have been a few court cases, most notably JK Rowling's 2008 case against Big Pictures Ltd, for photographing her son. Rowling argued and won a ruling that her son was entitled to privacy (under ECHR article even though he was in the street. It followed on from that, that the "personal data" illegally obtained and handled by Big Pictures also broke data protection law. Out-law has the details here.
The current ICO position, then, is an extrapolation of the above. If privacy is possible in a public place, then what comprises privacy? During the consultation, this question has been asked by an organisation that represents photographers.
According to the ICO response, which Copyright Action has seen, simply not wanting to be photographed is all it takes.
That can be interpreted as an outright ban on street photography if you wish, but I see it as a ban on egregiously photographing someone against their wishes, which I think is fair enough. And in any case, it's not clear whether his letter represents the proposed legal position or was simply advice. I can't see anything in the proposed legislation about photography, so I suspect the latter.
There have been a few court cases, most notably JK Rowling's 2008 case against Big Pictures Ltd, for photographing her son. Rowling argued and won a ruling that her son was entitled to privacy (under ECHR article even though he was in the street. It followed on from that, that the "personal data" illegally obtained and handled by Big Pictures also broke data protection law. Out-law has the details here.
The current ICO position, then, is an extrapolation of the above. If privacy is possible in a public place, then what comprises privacy? During the consultation, this question has been asked by an organisation that represents photographers.
According to the ICO response, which Copyright Action has seen, simply not wanting to be photographed is all it takes.
Posted 19/02/2010 - 22:37
Link
*sighs* a lot of paper work...
We have also World Intellectual Property Organization, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works falls under that as far as I understand but like I said too much paper work to go through right now. Then we also have European laws for EU members when there is a conflict...
To keep it simple for now just look at the Berne Convention.
Here are the countries in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works link
Article 3 is of interst.
If so then you in the UK are less lucky.
There might be a hole in it though the new law says that a company must search for the photographer but if they can't find it and the photograph is published on a Dutch website/server then it falls under Dutch law meaning they can't touch it I believe.
PS. My head is spinning right now
We have also World Intellectual Property Organization, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works falls under that as far as I understand but like I said too much paper work to go through right now. Then we also have European laws for EU members when there is a conflict...
To keep it simple for now just look at the Berne Convention.
Here are the countries in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works link
Article 3 is of interst.
Quote:
(1) The protection of this Convention shall apply to:
(a) authors who are nationals of one of the countries of the Union, for their works, whether published or not;
(b) authors who are not nationals of one of the countries of the Union, for their works first published in one of those countries, or simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union.
(2) Authors who are not nationals of one of the countries of the Union but who have their habitual residence in one of them shall, for the purposes of this Convention, be assimilated to nationals of that country.
(3) The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication.
(4) A work shall be considered as having been published simultaneously in several countries if it has been published in two or more countries within thirty days of its first publication.
And point 1 of article 5(1) The protection of this Convention shall apply to:
(a) authors who are nationals of one of the countries of the Union, for their works, whether published or not;
(b) authors who are not nationals of one of the countries of the Union, for their works first published in one of those countries, or simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union.
(2) Authors who are not nationals of one of the countries of the Union but who have their habitual residence in one of them shall, for the purposes of this Convention, be assimilated to nationals of that country.
(3) The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication.
(4) A work shall be considered as having been published simultaneously in several countries if it has been published in two or more countries within thirty days of its first publication.
Quote:
(1) Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention.
The important one for most of us is 1.A of article 3, if I understand correctly my photos are protected by Dutch law because of that am I right or wrong?(1) Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention.
If so then you in the UK are less lucky.
There might be a hole in it though the new law says that a company must search for the photographer but if they can't find it and the photograph is published on a Dutch website/server then it falls under Dutch law meaning they can't touch it I believe.
PS. My head is spinning right now
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 19/02/2010 - 23:47
Link
Anvh wrote:
*sighs* a lot of paper work...
PS. My head is spinning right now
Then my job is done! *sighs* a lot of paper work...
PS. My head is spinning right now
The Photomonk
Posted 19/02/2010 - 23:55
Link
Photomonk wrote:
The Photomonk
Great thank you, was just what I needed Anvh wrote:
*sighs* a lot of paper work...
PS. My head is spinning right now
Then my job is done! *sighs* a lot of paper work...
PS. My head is spinning right now
The Photomonk
The biggest problem is to find out which law to use and which over rule the other since that's also the problem because you aren't working with one law system here...
Doesn't anyone here has a law degree?
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 19/02/2010 - 23:58
Link
Not here, but I do think we need someone to interpret what this all means. In the meantime, numerous suggestions have been made from watermarking, etc. to safeguard your rights to your work. Until this is clarified, then it might be a good idea to incorporate one or all of these safeguards.
Now take two headache tablets and get some rest.
The Photomonk
Now take two headache tablets and get some rest.
The Photomonk
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
238 posts
16 years
Photo copyright law changes
The Photomonk