Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

Upcoming changes to UK Photo laws

Anvh
Posted 20/02/2010 - 00:07 Link
Yeah it's time to make a water mark.
hmmm maybe I can start my own watermark business designing watermarks, anyone interested?
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Lloydy
Posted 20/02/2010 - 00:12 Link
The main question-

Quote:
who will benefit from unclaimed fees, who the extended licensing societies will be and what rules they will have to follow, are all unspecified and unknown to supporters and opponents alike.

and the answer -

Quote:
Even if he ( Mandelson ) can't tell the public or Parliament what he's going to do or how any of it will impact on us, or how the sums work, or even how much money government will rake off the deal with collecting societies,

Photomonk
Posted 20/02/2010 - 00:13 Link
It is a relatively easy thing to do. Now to do one creatively while not totally hindering the image is the tricky thing. Good luck in your venture from one that has been doing graphic design for years.

The Photomonk
CoDa
Posted 20/02/2010 - 00:23 Link
There is an on-line petition here so far the Signatures are 4,436 as at 00:24 today

Lets all sign it
Colin

“Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”
Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797)


Comment Image
Anvh
Posted 20/02/2010 - 00:28 Link
Lloydy wrote:
The main question-

Quote:
who will benefit from unclaimed fees, who the extended licensing societies will be and what rules they will have to follow, are all unspecified and unknown to supporters and opponents alike.

and the answer -

Quote:
Even if he ( Mandelson ) can't tell the public or Parliament what he's going to do or how any of it will impact on us, or how the sums work, or even how much money government will rake off the deal with collecting societies,


But then I believe that my work is protected by Dutch laws.
If a company would pay money/fees to the UK government I think they should go free then since they did pay the fee to use the art so if I should sue someone that would then be the UK government for selling the rights of my art without my premisson... now that's going to be interesting case in court.

It's only going to cause them problems, if you aren't sure from who the photo is then just don't use it. You're always free to hire someone to take the same photo

Photomonk wrote:
It is a relatively easy thing to do. Now to do one creatively while not totally hindering the image is the tricky thing. Good luck in your venture from one that has been doing graphic design for years.

Really, it's an interesting market.
I've done 2 things now just by luck, one is a cover for a book and the other is a cover for a menu of a restaurant.

It's indeed hard to make a good water mark also you need to think of one that isn't easy to clone out of course.
I'll have a go and see what I can come up with for myself
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Photomonk
Posted 20/02/2010 - 00:39 Link
Stefan,

I work within the Adobe Creative Suite with InDesign and Illustrator. They are not cheap programs, but what you can do with them in an hour used to take days before computers. It might pay for you take take a few type and design courses to get a better feel for graphic designing. As in any design, remember to think outside the box.

The Photomonk
Lloydy
Posted 20/02/2010 - 01:19 Link
[quote]
But then I believe that my work is protected by Dutch laws.


So, if you post a photograph on a Dutch web site, it gets 'used' by a British 'based' company that is working in South Africa, producing packaging for a product made and packaged in China for the Brazilian market. Who are you going to sue?

If the UK opens up this 'opportunity' for people after cheap, or free, images then it will become a loophole that they can exploit.

And if the legislation surrounding this 'opportunity' is written and constructed in such a way that it becomes the photographers responsibility to pursue their royalties then it will inevitably lead to vast amounts of royalties that will never be claimed. And let's take a guess as to what happens to the fee that the user will pay to whatever organization is set up to deal with these 'orphaned' pictures?
My bet is on the government taking a big share it.

If they could tax us for farting, they would.
Edited by Lloydy: 20/02/2010 - 01:19
Anvh
Posted 20/02/2010 - 02:42 Link
Photomonk wrote:
Stefan,

I work within the Adobe Creative Suite with InDesign and Illustrator. They are not cheap programs, but what you can do with them in an hour used to take days before computers. It might pay for you take take a few type and design courses to get a better feel for graphic designing. As in any design, remember to think outside the box.

The Photomonk

I got the package through school so saved a lot of money and my grandpa payed with and using some of the programs like indisgn, he is a writer and published his own books.

I'm thinking of doing a photography cours though, I could always extend that of course so who knows.

[quote:3496ace15f="Lloydy"]
Quote:

But then I believe that my work is protected by Dutch laws.


So, if you post a photograph on a Dutch web site, it gets 'used' by a British 'based' company that is working in South Africa, producing packaging for a product made and packaged in China for the Brazilian market. Who are you going to sue?

If the UK opens up this 'opportunity' for people after cheap, or free, images then it will become a loophole that they can exploit.

And if the legislation surrounding this 'opportunity' is written and constructed in such a way that it becomes the photographers responsibility to pursue their royalties then it will inevitably lead to vast amounts of royalties that will never be claimed. And let's take a guess as to what happens to the fee that the user will pay to whatever organization is set up to deal with these 'orphaned' pictures?
My bet is on the government taking a big share it.

If they could tax us for farting, they would.

The matter does not change the UK goverment is selling the rights to use my photo to the British based company.
I can not blame the company since they bought those right from an illegal dealer, so the logical thing is to sue the one who is selling those rights illegaly, the UK goverment.

That they have a law that they can do that in the UK does not give them the right to force the law on another country. Since I would be the holder of the copyright and living in the Netherlands those rights aply on my art not the UK one.
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Malo1961
Posted 20/02/2010 - 07:54 Link
Quote:
I can not blame the company since they bought those right from an illegal dealer, so the logical thing is to sue the one who is selling those rights illegaly, the UK goverment.

Sorry Stefan, but this is b*ll*cks. The one who is making a profit is also the one who has to be accounted for. Your statement is exactly what they are waiting for. Hiding behind deny-ability. Every company who uses work of some one else to gain profit should convince themselves they have permission to do so. It's just plain theft...which way you turn it.
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.
PaulEvans
Posted 20/02/2010 - 08:32 Link
Worrying article. Just finished emailing the ICO and just finishing letter to my MP. Think I'll also write to Mandelson personally.
K3ii, DA16-85, DA35mm Limited, FA77mm Limited, 55mm f1.8 K, 135mm f3.5 M, DA300, DA 1.4 HD TC,
DA16-45, Sigma 15mm f2.8. Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro
Anvh
Posted 20/02/2010 - 08:50 Link
Malo1961 wrote:
Quote:
I can not blame the company since they bought those right from an illegal dealer, so the logical thing is to sue the one who is selling those rights illegaly, the UK goverment.

Sorry Stefan, but this is b*ll*cks. The one who is making a profit is also the one who has to be accounted for. Your statement is exactly what they are waiting for. Hiding behind deny-ability. Every company who uses work of some one else to gain profit should convince themselves they have permission to do so. It's just plain theft...which way you turn it.

And I'm saying that.
The diffence with what you say is that I can't blame the company for using this law if the UK goverment allow it, also you couldn't sue the company because they paid a fee to use it according the law so they are coverd. All you can do is sue the goverment for illegaly selling your art and make sure the company can't use your art because they got it through illegal practise.

In short.
If the law is there it would be hard to sue the company directly since they did what the law allow them to do.

Of course it is theft but allowed by law... what do you can to do about?
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Edited by Anvh: 20/02/2010 - 08:59
Malo1961
Posted 20/02/2010 - 09:05 Link
Quote:
Of course it is theft but allowed by law... what do you want to do about?

Make sure every photo you own isn't orphaned on the web by following the three points I mentioned earlier. I know it won't stop any one to grab them and use them for their own benefit (without paying for it), but at least you have covered everything at your end to assure a firm legal basement to sue.
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.
Anvh
Posted 20/02/2010 - 09:06 Link
Malo1961 wrote:
Quote:
Of course it is theft but allowed by law... what do you want to do about?

Make sure every photo you own isn't orphaned on the web by following the three points I mentioned earlier. I know it won't stop any one to grab them and use them for their own benefit (without paying for it), but at least you have covered everything at your end to assure a firm legal basement to sue.

Click the button too fast

What I wanted to say is; sue who?
From what I understand the company needs to pay the goverment then to use the photo so I believe that means the goverment is giving premision then to the company to use the photo. That would mean all went according to the law so who should I sue?
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Edited by Anvh: 20/02/2010 - 09:11
Malo1961
Posted 20/02/2010 - 10:05 Link
You are missing something....
We are talking about orphaned pictures here. To prevent Infringement of Copyright from happening make sure your pictures can't be classified as "orphaned".

This new law is aimed at all those millions of pictures as a possible free source to use. Knowing a lot of the rightful owners don't have a clue about ITPC and all that stuff that helps prevent (notice I say helps and not insures) theft.

The moment you decide to go public with your pictures (on the web) you have a responsibility to yourself and to all the photographers around the globe who take their work seriously to take adequate measures in protecting it.

Obviously millions of happy snappers don't think or care about the consequences the are causing. They just want to show aunt Sue on the other side of the globe the pictures of their new born child.And place them on public communities like.....Flickr or Facebook. They don't think for a minute to read the fine print.
All that ignorance is therefore opening/providing a market for those companies who are searching for a quick/cheap deal.
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.
Stanovich
Posted 20/02/2010 - 11:09 Link
Thanks Photomonk for posting.

I haven't read the original proposals, but this has some interesting implications.

If a professional photographer can't take non-consensual pictures of people it presumably rules out pictures of passers-by, demonstrations, gatherings etc appearing on the news and in the papers. Except of course if they are taken by amateurs, posted on the web without identification, and legally pirated by the publishers/news organisations.

As an amateur who has had a few pictures published (and paid for, or contributing to my own profitable activities) in magazines and books when do I become a 'professional'? Presumably when I attempt to sell a picture of Peter Mandelson. But if I post it anonymously on the Internet, it can appear in The Sun the next day.

Plus of course are the international implications that a couple of posters have already mentioned.

This looks a complete mess and very poorly thought through.
K5IIs & ME Super with FA24-90, DA17-70, DA55-300, misc old primes; Fuji X20.

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.