Hurtling towards photogeddon or why taking your photos off the net is possibly the worst thing you can do if you want to retain copyright

From some of the things being written in the last few days you’d think that the sky is about to fall on photography’s head:

“@stop43uk: #Stop43, This act will kill the Media industry. Photographers, artists, novelist and music industry. STOP IT NOW”

— Lewis Whyld (@LewisWhyld) May 1, 2013

That’s just one of a tirade of  alarmist tweets and posts about why the UK’s new Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will cause photogeddon in the UK. The law will give individuals and companies the right to exploit orphan works. That’s work where the copyright owner cannot be traced.

According to  STOP43, the lobby group trying to get the changes to the legislation on copyright dropped:

Photographers have just been royally f..! UKGov to allow wholesale image theft. Say goodbye to your rights! ow.ly/kyNIK

— Stop43 (@Stop43orguk) May 1, 2013

On their website they go even further:

You think you own your own photographs? NOT FOR LONG.

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act will allow anyone to exploit your photographs without your knowledge, permission, and payment to you.

If you keep your pics indexed online that is about as true as stating that the MMR jab causes autism. They’re not the only one’s pushing this nonsense (I’ll explain why I think they are spreading such propaganda at the end of the post).

AFP photographer Leon Neal writes in a post titled The Race To The End that the act effectively allows ‘any image found online to be used for free, providing the use has taken four seconds to make sure it hasn’t got a watermark slapped across it, or still has its metadata intact.’

Edmond Terakopian thinks that the UK government might be trying to kill off photographers:

‘the majority of websites, social networks and so on strip out ALL of this data (metadata). 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.

Terakopian goes on to suggest that you should watermark any images you put online. And whilst that might be OK for Edmond’s portfolio I don’t think any of his clients will accept a clause in a contract that states they can use the photos they’ve paid for on their website only if they publish the watermarked versions. Other photographers are preparing to take most of their work offline, which is possibly the worst thing you can do if your photos have already been published on the web and you don’t want people to steal and profit from your work.

The truth is the law will require that before an individual or a company attempts to exploit an orphan image they will need to check if the image has a traceable owner. On BJP Laurent Olivier writes

‘While publishers seeking to use an orphan work will have to demonstrate they have done a reasonable search for the image’s owner, a large number of online services, such as Facebook, Twitter and Flickr, strip the metadata from uploaded images, creating millions of new orphan works each day.’

Olivier is right about online services stripping the metadata but wrong, along with most of the people from the photography industry predicting photogeddon, that this creates ‘millions of new orphan works each day’. That’s because the definition of an orphan work  is not a photo that has been stripped of its metadata but ‘is a copyrighted work for which the copyright owner cannot be contacted‘. If you’ve published a photo on your Flickr or Facebook page then, whether it’s stripped of its meta-data or not, it’s clearly not an orphan work.

Of course nothing is to stop someone nicking your picture and then publishing it elsewhere without any details. This happens all the time but as stated above it only creates an orphan work if the originator of the photo cannot be traced.

We all know it’s as easy as a right click to steal images from the web. The real question photographers need to face when the bill is enacted is how easy is it to trace me as the copyright holder of my images? Because if it is easy to trace the image back to you then it’s very difficult for someone to claim in court, or otherwise, that they’ve done a ‘diligent search’. That’s exactly what the law will require of individuals and companies before they exploit an orphan work.

So to test the arguments being made against the act I’ve stolen, and stripped of meta-data, the following images. They were taken from Facebook, Flickr and a personal website.

leon

 

Lewis Whyld Photo (see update)

How long would it take someone with access to the web to work out whether these photos are orphan works, as those predicting photogeddon claim, or have identifiable copyright holders?

I’ll tell you how long. Using google image search less than a minute for each one.

Guess who took the top three photos? Leon Neal, Edmond Terakopian   (see update) and Lewis Whyld. Bang goes the theory that the new act is about to ‘kill off the media industry’. The fact is that as the easily identifiable authors of their work, their rights, or the rights of others to exploit their work, won’t change.

What might this mean to you as a photographer? Probably the biggest mistake you can make is to take your photos off the web because if they are published elsewhere, say on a client’s website, without a copyright notice ,then it’s very difficult to trace them back to you, thus potentially making them an orphan work. That said before they are exploited you would still expect the law to conclude a diligent search should include contacting the owners of the website where the images are held ~(UPDATE: actually it will be a much more complex process to register an image as an orphan work, see the post here). What you need to do is check that the place where you hold your pictures is indexed by google. That way they should always show up as belonging to you in a google image search.

So why is STOP43 and a number of photographers and photo organisations scaremongering? I think the answer is simple and comes back to cash.

If a huge number of photos became available to use for free, because they are genuine orphan works, then why would you bother licensing an image from Getty? That’s  a good reason why they, STOP43 and over  70 organisations representing photographers have protested against the clause.

In that sense the act is a real threat to the finances of companies and photographers who make a living from selling stock.  Not because people will steal their images but because they won’t need to. They’ll be able to access genuine orphan works for little or no cost (UPDATE: According to the IPO this isn’t true. See the post about how orphan works can be registered and sold here).

This is bad news for photographers and is a good reason to fight against the new law. As is the fact that photos can be taken of pictures not on the web and turned into orphan works on the web (UPDATE: Again according to the IPO not true. See the post here).

It’s just a shame that instead of being honest about the legislation and targeting the actual damage it may cause,  STOP43 and others have taken to pumping out seemingly paranoid and inaccurate propagada.

POST CORRECTIONS:

An earlier version of this post stated that STOP43 is funded by Getty. This is not true.

The conclusions about the damage this bill may cause are refuted by the IPO. They have prepared a Myths and Facts response to STOP43 here.

UPDATES

Edmond Terakopian has asked duckrabbit to take his photo down. I think it would be covered under fair dealing if the proper copyright notice has been included. However I normally take down a photo when asked to and so have removed the screengrab. Simon Crofts has written to warn me this is a criminal act (popping someone else’s photo on our blog) that is punishable with up to two years in prison (or maybe 5?) and a massive fine. That explains why the prisons in Britain are so full (I’m awaiting the knock on the door).

 

If you were wondering what the photo is, I have embedded it from Terakopian’s Flickr page below (until he disables the embed feature which he can do at any point and remove the photo from this site but you can see it here). It seems a bit contradictory to accuse people of stealing your images when you host them on a Flickr page that provides people with an embed code, asks them to share and then feeds the image to that page!

Lewis Whyld has asked for his photo to be removed with the following comment:

‘I didn’t know anything about duckrabbit until now, but I’m genuinely left with the impression that it’s a self serving site happy to rip-off photographers in an attempt to drive traffic. I’d like to opt-out please.’

I’m not sure Lewis’ picture, lovely though it is, was driving the traffic to the post, but he’s entitled to think so.  I don’t know why he’s bothered though, because according to his tweet the media industry is about to be killed. He’s out of a job and his photos are worthless.

 

Author — duckrabbit

duckrabbit is a production company formed by radio producer/journalist Benjamin Chesterton and photographer David White. We specialize in digital storytelling.

Discussion (107 Comments)

  1. Green Boar Tea says:

    Another good image search engine is tineye.com (nothing to do with me… just appreciate it )

  2. Ed says:

    I don’t know if it comes down to cash. But I do agree that taking your image off the web completely counteract the very thing you are trying to prevent because any of those images that have already been stolen now become legitimate web orphans – they have no reference point of origin

    If the UK government standardizes copyright by providing a service by which people can register their images, like copyright.gov in the US, then that provides the first point of source anyone would have to go to to prove/or disprove an image was stolen. Maybe they have something like this already and I missed it. Incidentally you can register your images at copyright.gov even as a non-US based photographer providing you protection in the US market. This doesn’t protect you internationally though as the jurisdiction is only for the US.

    Something else that can be done rather than watermark might be to look into using Digimarc or imagerights, which can include embedded imperceptible, persistent digital “watermarks.”

    Together these two things would go a long way to helping prove an image isn’t an orphan and provide a business practice for photographers that holds content trawlers to an accountable standard. if it’s registered at copyright.gov, or e.g. copyright.gov.uk, the thief will lose. Full stop.

  3. Finally someone talking some sense.
    Watermarks my arse.
    Thanks.

    btw, Source Image – http://jarred.github.io/src-img/ – identified all 3 images in 30 seconds.

  4. Leon Neal says:

    Dear anonymous Duckrabbit,

    It’s a shame that you have jumped to your own conclusions on this too. My reason for highlighting this hasn’t been some for some self-serving purpose at all but has actually been because I can see how the Bill has the real potential to damage the chances of those trying to get into the industry and make money from their work. If you’d bothered to get in touch to run any of your theories and allegations about my motivation by me first, I’d have been happy to tell you that I’m a staff photographer at Agence-France Presse so I don’t own the copyright on the pictures on my site anyway. I lose nothing if the pictures are used illegally, unlike my employer who happens to own the rights to them.

    While there may well be truth in the fact that the large agencies are scared of having their content de-valued, there’s nothing wrong in their reasons for concern either although they’re big enough to fight their own fights in the courts.

    As far as pointing out how easy it is to do a reverse search, yes, we all know that but for someone with an extensive online gallery, should they now be spending hours every day doing a reverse image search on each and every frame, one after the other?

    If this Bill makes no difference to the rights of the photographer and everything is just the same, why have it? What is the photographer getting from it? How does a freelance photographer gain from this?

    Leon

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Leon,

      Thanks for your comment.

      I didn’t ‘jump to conclusions'(except about STOP43 being funded by Getty). I read your post and others and thought it might make sense to find out what the act actually states. As the post points out it seems as odds with your reading of the act. That was my point in relation to quoting you.

      Yes I know you work for AFP.

      The suggestion that I should contact you before quoting your own blog is absurd.

      Can you please quote back the allegation I made against you?

      Read the article again. I didn’t write photographers should do a reverse search. I wrote that in establishing whether a work is orphan or not you would expect this to be done by the person wishing to exploit the photograph.

      My name is Benjamin Chesterton. I am the founder of duckrabbit.

      THANKS

  5. What check – are you really that naive?’reasonable’ a lovely legal fudge – it means lawyers get paid well to deabte, charging by the hour, the act is committed , the creator gets bugger all.

    Sorry Ben, you need to rethink this – you are very wrong.

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Martin,

      Actually it states ‘dilligent’. If you want to pay a laywer £250 an hour to tell you that dilligent should include a reverse search on google then that’s your choice. Me I’d just slip in a claim to the small claims court.

      Benjamin

      • Define diligent. And now explain how it’s measured. Somebody could quite easily say they did a google search and couldn’t spot anything.. claiming that to be diligent. They could say they searched Getty’s archive (while not other libraries) and claim that showed due diligence.

        It’s not an exact measure. Therefore it’s open to interpretation. I’m in the middle of a court case now where the infringement could have been classed as fair dealing under this new act.. It’s not fair at all. It’s theft.

  6. thank you for this common sense. From even a cursory reading of the new law it is very clear to me that it’s not going to be the end of the world for any of us. all my work is on my website, Flickr, Facebook or otherwise is somewhere with my name nearby and easily traceable. Most of the people “panicking” have clearly not read or understood the new rule and this post really clears it up for them…cheers!!!

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Paul,

      thanks for your comment.

      my post is just a point of view and should not be read in any way as definitive. I’m not an expert in law but I do think common sense needs to be applied.

  7. Amin says:

    While I oppose the new legislation (including having signed the petition, and would still sign it if I hadn’t already and come across this article), you have raised some excellent points that are very valid and have re-shaped some of my thinking toward the issue. Thanks.

  8. Leon Neal says:

    Hi Benjamin,

    You refer to the questions that Lewis, Edmond, Stop43 and others have raised as “pushing this nonsense” before stating that you will “explain why I think they are spreading such propaganda at the end of the post”. At the end of the post, you say “I think the answer is simple and comes back to cash.” To me, that suggests that I have been deliberately spreading incorrect information to protect my financial income.

    The reason that I suggested you contact me is because we both write photography blogs, we’ve both liked and promoted previous work by each other and you have questions about what I am saying. Rather than leaving a post on my blog or asking me why I’ve said something in a friendly manner, you’ve written a post stating that “instead of being honest about the legislation”, implying that myself and others are purposefully trying to mislead people. If you believe that I am mistaken, that is your choice but you’re suggesting that I’m being dishonest.

    The industry is already flooded with situations where images are stolen on a daily basis and that’s with the current laws in place. Just this evening, a series of pictures have turned up on a major newspapers website that have been stripped of metadata and sold by an “agency”. They have responded by saying that they “supply news stories to our newspaper clients its down to them to clear rights”. Anything at all that potentially erodes rights or makes it easier for an end-user to get away with this in the future is a bad thing and detrimental to the industry.

    We both agree that the Bill is a bad thing. It’s just a shame that you have the written this article in the way you did.

    THANKS

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Leon,

      thanks for your comment.

      When I wrote ‘they’ I am clearly refering to STOP43. At that point in the post you hadn’t even been mentioned.

      I don’t have questions about what you wrote because I think what you wrote is very clear. If I did have questions I would have written to you or posed them on the blog.

      I do think what you wrote doesn’t make any sense in relation to the proposals and I state why in the post. It doesn’t make any sense to me, in which case it seems to me to be part of a tide of opinion that is no more than propanganda against the bill.

      Instead of writing that I should have contacted you to ask for a comment on your comment, why don’t you defend what you write and persuade me I’m wrong?

      • Leon Neal says:

        Hi Benjamin,

        You’re welcome regarding the comment. I actively support photography and photo-blogging sites.

        It really isn’t that clear that you’re referring to Stop43 alone as it follows the words, “They’re not the only one’s pushing this nonsense”, implying that others have the same belief, immediately followed by a reference to my post. That seems like quite a clear suggestion to me. When writing about one subject but referencing a number of people, particularly when using collective terms such as the example I gave above, you can’t say “Oh, I wasn’t meaning you in that bit” and assume that I won’t take offence to an implication of dishonesty. If you want to continue stating that you didn’t make that connection, we’ll leave it there as we clearly don’t agree on how your post comes across.

        As you have agreed yourself, it is a sad truth that pictures are currently sometimes taken from a site and used elsewhere without any reference, credit or payment. How does creating a whole new loophole assist those who are trying to make a living through selling their work? Without naming names, some news websites are already flagrantly breaking copyright laws through the theft of photos on a very regular basis, relying on the owners to come forward IF they spot that the pictures have been used. Giving sites like this the chance to claim to be using an “orphan” image rather than just stealing it is yet another nail in the coffin of independent photography businesses. Yes, they’ll legally have to have shown an effort to track the owner down but judging by their current system, I’m sure they won’t be losing too much sleep over it. No-one appears to have provided any way yet that this Bill will benefit photographers. Please feel free to provide any sources if you have.

        As I have repeatedly said already, we both agree that the Bill is potentially a bad thing and should not have been rushed through like this. I’ve made my concerns known on my site and now repeatedly in your comments section. I’m guessing that you’re unlikely to feel persuaded as, like myself, you clearly have a strong opinion on the issue.

        • duckrabbit says:

          Hi Leon,

          I take your well made point that the my post could be read the way you are suggesting. I’m of the opinion there is effort to mis-inform people about what the bill actually means and I think your post forms, knowingly or otherwise, part of that effort, which is having a scaremongering effect.

          ‘How does creating a whole new loophole assist those who are trying to make a living through selling their work? ‘

          Agree. It doesn’t and I never suggested it did.

          ‘Without naming names, some news websites are already flagrantly breaking copyright laws through the theft of photos on a very regular basis, relying on the owners to come forward.’

          This is big problem. Your employer is one of the worst culprits. I’ve seen AFP consistantly take photos from the web, as well stills from web videos and copyright them to themselves (Morel being the classic example). More should be done both now and after the new legislation to stop this happening whwre it infringes the rights of a professional photographer (as opposed to someone who wants their photos hoovered up in this way).

          ‘ No-one appears to have provided any way yet that this Bill will benefit photographers’

          Agreed. I never suggested it would. But let me remind you that you wrote that the act effectively allows ‘any image found online to be used for free, providing the use has taken four seconds to make sure it hasn’t got a watermark slapped across it, or still has its metadata intact.’

          My point is that your statement and many of the statements made about the bill are untrue; as opposed to the well made comments you’ve made here. I don’t think the photography community is going to win the argument by making a case against a bill that simply doesn’t exist.

  9. The key phrase in your piece is “in court.” The rest of the article fails to dissuade me that those worried about this bill are being Pollyannas.. Personally, I have no time or money to track down and sue anyone and everyone who may have abused the “orphan work” designation by “failing” to conduct a “diligent search.” That’s the whole point. This bill practically encourages those with deep pockets to appropriate copyrighted material – AND for goodness sakes to sub-license that material. It makes for a mess and will demonstrably create headaches for content producers. While I get that people are up in arms about a “worst case scenario” why shouldn’t we be concerned? Your article leaves me with no more confidence in the issue.

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Reservoir Dan,

      ‘This bill practically encourages those with deep pockets to appropriate copyrighted material’

      You and others say this, but how does it? You say it will create a headache for content producers. How will it? I’m a content producer and I’d like to know.

      And if you’re not prepared to go to court againt a big company that steals your images then the act makes no difference at all. I am safe to steal your images now, or after the act.

      By the way you don’t need much money to go through the small claims court. Less than £100. I know. I’ve done it myself.

  10. Simon Crofts says:

    You are half right – but you have presented this in a very unfortunate (and I think, self-serving) way.

    In my view, it is true that one of the most important reasons why photographers should fight this is that it will take the bottom out of the market for photography by allowing ready access to a huge resource of photographs without the copyright owners’ permission, and at a price that will be state regulated. It is likely to devalue photography. I can’t speak for them, but I suspect that that is likely to be one of the most important reasons why people like Stop43, and all right-thinking photographers, need to fight this. It is not just about using YOUR photos, or my photos without permission, it’s about being able to use a huge reservoir of images without the permission of the person who produced them. The consequent devaluation of photography is why we are looking at the ‘end of copyright’ – not the end of copyright as a legal or technical concept, we will still have that – it just won’t be worth very much.

    I believe that you should be fighting for this tooth and nail, and using every possible effort to support people like Stop43, who are doing an awful lot on your and my behalf without being paid for it. I think this blog post is (I am afraid) simply here to be controversial and attract traffic to your blog. I have always respected your blog, but I’m afraid it has rather sunk in my estimation, which saddens me.

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Simon,

      Perhaps you could explain how is the way I’ve presented the subject ‘self-serving’?

      Do you believe that fighting ‘tooth and nail’ should include lying to people?

      I think that’s a fast way to lose an argument.

      • Simon Crofts says:

        I believe that the way it is presented is self-serving because it’s designed to drive traffic to your site and generate discussion on your blog. You start the post with rather sensational allegations, and put the sensible bit at the end. Sorry, but that’s how I see it. If you wanted to make a genuine contribution to the matter, you would have contributed elsewhere, perhaps as part of the legislative consultation process.

        I don’t believe that fighting tooth and nail involves lying. But I’ve read the statements that you’re criticising above, and while there is hyperbole and simplification – they are catchy headlines, the statements are substantially correct.

        You’d do better to get rid of this post and do your best to support it.

        • duckrabbit says:

          Hi Simon

          ‘I believe that the way it is presented is self-serving because it’s designed to drive traffic to your site and generate discussion on your blog.’

          Sorry mate. It’s terrible habit we have at duckrabbit of writing things with the idea that an audience might want to read them. Next time I’ll write it as a wikipedia entry.

          By the way ‘you start the post with rather sensational allegations’. Actually I start the post by quoteing people who make the sensational allegations.

          ‘You’d do better to get rid of this post and do your best to support it.’

          Great. Let’s all join together and try and defeat a bill that doesn’t actually exist.

          • Simon Crofts says:

            “It’s terrible habit we have at duckrabbit of writing things with the idea that an audience might want to read them. Next time I’ll write it as a wikipedia entry.”

            No, next time write it as a submission to all the various consultations and working groups who have been trying to input into the issue. Rather than trying to make cheap publicity out of it in a way that undermines photographers. Because some of the people that you are criticising have been working tirelessly on all our behalfs, and have achieved a lot.

            “Actually I start the post by quoteing people who make the sensational allegations.”

            The allegations of the people you quote may be sensational – but in essence they’re correct. At its heart, this is really a fight for the survival of copyright. There are powerful groups that believe that your and my ownership of our images shouldn’t exist, that information – images – should be free. These proposals are an important building block in that strategy.

            “Let’s all join together and try and defeat a bill that doesn’t actually exist.”

            It doesn’t exist because it’s no longer a bill. It’s now an Act of Parliament. Where were you when the long fight to try to stop getting it adopted was in progress? How many submissions did you make?

            Now it’s a matter of trying to save something from a bad situation. Your post will be great to driving traffic to your blog, congratulations. But terrible for photographers.

  11. Tim Gander says:

    Seems a bit harsh to me that a photographer will have to keep every photo they ever supply to a client hosted on their own website forever (and for 70 years after their death if they want to protect their estate) simply for their ownership to remain traceable. Setting aside the environmental impact of covering the planet with server farms to hold all this extra data for maybe 130 years or whatever (a photographer born today might have a 60-year career, die 20 years after they retire… oh you work it out), it rather suggests that copyright protection in this country is no longer free to all, only those with the financial means to exercise it. Eventually we’ll be back to a situation where only the financially independent will have the means to generate meaningful new content, which is one issue copyright was designed to address in the first place. So much for the democratisation of photography then.

    This whole debate would really be a lot less heated if the government would just come out and say that the act will only cover historical, archived works held in established institutions instead of leaving everyone assuming it’ll encompass anything currently the web.

    I’m not at all convinced an influx of historical, cheap images will devalue the stock image market significantly because there’s no real difference between an influx of historical images and the constant addition of hokey stock shots that get piled in every day regardless of requirements. The old stuff might be suitable for some uses, but not for everything and frankly it’d be quite difficult to devalue general stock from where it is now.

    I’ll be honest, this is just another blog with a poorly thought-out proposition. I don’t think the ERRA is photogeddon, but I do think it is dangerously vague and needs very tight limitations.

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Tim,

      the post is not about wether the act makes sense or not, but about the often absurd arguments being presented against it.

      I’m lost about your point about finances. I think you might find you need them to have a camera and back stuff up, full stop. As someone who has covered carbon in the enviroment as a producer at the BBC although computing is a seriously big carbon emitter having very low res images on a server somewhere is not a major issue in terms of a humans carbon footprint.

  12. If you wish to carry on using my photograph on your blog, which you have stolen from the internet, I shall be issuing you an invoice for usage. Otherwise kindly take down the image at once. Thank you.

    • Hi Edmond – just an observation, but under “fair use’ terms the presence of your image here may be permissable under the Copyright Act. Certainly in the USA it is, its presence described as “Fair Use”.

      Under the UK Copyright Act there is no ‘fair use’ but there is ‘fair dealing’ which is described in the Act as:

      What is fair dealing?

      Fair dealing is a term used to describe some limited activities that are allowed without infringing copyright. Briefly these are as follows:

      Criticism or review

      Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:
      The work has been made available to the public.
      The source of the material is acknowledged.
      The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
      The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.

      Source: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others

      So as the author has used your image for the purposes of genuine criticism, and although has stated he “stole” the images, has actually acknowledged your ownership and authorship of the image, and has used no more than necessary for the purpose of the review, it appears his use is legitimate, and your issuance of an invoice would not be.

      It may be that your invoice is unenforceable in law.

      I may be totally wrong of course, as I am not a Copyright Lawyer, but this is the type of misunderstanding of what is, and is not permitted under Copyright, that makes any discussion of the proposed legislation very problematic.

      • Simon Crofts says:

        The ‘criticism and review’ exception only applies where you are criticising and reviewing the photo in question. Not where you’re using the photo to illustrate a subject that you’re criticising or reviewing.

        Please, please do send an invoice. And make it a big one.

        • Hi Simon – can you direct me to the precise documentation of that fact? That’s not my understanding – it’s merely one interpretation (although the Act is fairly vague and open to a variety of interpretations!)

          “Criticism or review

          Section 30(1) of the 1988 Act provides that the fair dealing exception is valid if the material is being copied for criticism of review. For it to apply, the infringer must be able to show that the dealing was for criticism or review, that the infringed work was previously made available to the public, that the dealing was fair, and that the dealing was accompanied by an acknowledgement.

          The first step requires the defendant to show that the copying was done to criticise or review the work in question, the performance of the work, or, as in Beloff v Pressdram,[16] another work. The courts will interpret “criticism or review” liberally.

          The exception is only applicable where the work has previously been made available to the public, which can take the form of issuing copies, lending copies, performing or exhibiting a copyrighted piece, or communicating it to the public. If the work has not been clearly made available not just to others but to the public in general, the exception does not apply.

          The dealing must also be shown to have been fair, taking into account the many factors considered by the courts. Bently and Sherman suggest that in relation to fair dealings for criticism or review, the most relevant aspects considered by the court are likely to be the quantity taken, the method of acquisition and the consequences.[20]”

          The bottom line in all of this is that it’s complicated, with various mitigating factors affecting the outcome of any case, and only decided in a court.

          • Simon Crofts says:

            Hi John, the way I described is the only way the exception can work. Otherwise everyone could publish any photo and claim that it was being used to illustrate whatever it was that person was criticising or reviewing. Pretty much any article is criticising or reviewing SOMETHING.

            But the bit you quote above also makes it clear: “The first step requires the defendant to show that the copying was done to criticise or review the work in question, the performance of the work, or, as in Beloff v Pressdram,[16] another work”

            So it has to be criticising or reviewing the work in question: i.e.: that photograph. Not some other matter.

            The exception of Beloff and Pressdram that your quote refers to is a canadian case that gives a very limited exception relating to “national security, breach of laws, or other such endangering matters”, you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defences_in_Canadian_copyright_law

            But the general principle that you have to be reviewing the work in question – your source confirms this.

        • Thanks Simon – I guess I was considering it in the specific context on this blog, rather than as a general principle.

          I usually try to get my head around these issues by looking at them in a context-specific way. Hence: duck’s critique of the issue (copyright and orphan works) and his criticism of, and quotes of Edmund’s (and other’s) comments relating to this issue, then illustrating this critique, and the very point of ‘establishing ownership of images’, with images from these specific individuals. This intended by duck to make a particular point.

          My ‘assumption’ was that the use of the images constituted “Fair Use/Dealing” given the context of quotation (of Edmund etc).

          Of course none of this does anything other than highlight the ease with which different interpretations can be made, and underlines why more detailed scrutiny of the proposed legislation and such vague terms as “diligent search” is required.

          The Copyright Act itself is open to considerable interpretation as it stands in many areas.

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Edmond,

      if you don’t want a photo to be shared why do you host it on a page that suggests people do exactly that and provides them with an embed code?

      • You had originally taken the image and then uploaded it onto your website; it was not embedded and linking back to my Flickr page where you had in effect stolen it from. When I was clicking on it late last night (early morning) it was not linking anywhere. You have only now used the embed feature (which I haven’t touched and is still as it was). Regardless, this is my image and I am not giving you permission to use it, or anything else shot by me unless you apply for a license of usage.
        I realise you reply on winding people up so you can get some traffic and get your “brand” out there, but telling lies, as you have about me disabling the code or the fact that you embedded it when you did not, is immature. We are dealing with an important issue at hand with this Act, which when finalised into legislation can cripple our industry, yet at this time instead of pulling your sleeves up and seeing what can be done, you resort to trolling the net and trying to wind up professionals. Extremely petty.

        • duckrabbit says:

          Hi Edmond,

          A point of law. I did not ‘steal’ the photo. I made an unliscensed copy of it. One is criminal the other is not.

          I made it clear yesterday it was a screengrab. I deleted it when you asked me to, so what you are talking about in relation to ‘lies’ I have no idea. I am now using a photo that you are choosing to feed to the site. I’m sure you are capable of removing the embed option from the photo if you don’t want it to show up here.

          ‘We are dealing with an important issue at hand with this Act, which when finalised into legislation can cripple our industry, yet at this time instead of pulling your sleeves up and seeing what can be done, you resort to trolling the net and trying to wind up professionals. Extremely petty.’

          Your entitled to your opinion. I actually set out why think your post about the act is wrong, on a number of points. Its a shame you can’t pick up on them. Point out where I am wrong or amend your post to accurately reflect what is in the leglislation.

          • Simon Crofts says:

            “A point of law. I did not ‘steal’ the photo. I made an unliscensed copy of it. One is criminal the other is not.”

            Again, a point of law: publishing a photo without permission in the course of a business is a criminal offence. S.107(2A) of the Copyright Act. Copyright theft. Up to 2 years in prison or up to £50,000 fine.

            Again demonstrating your woeful lack of knowledge of the subject. Before making this whole woeful post, it would have been better to have researched the subject a little bit.

          • I have removed the embed feature on Flickr and am asking you one final time to remove the image of Ian Berry from your blog. I do not give you permission to use this image. This image is protected by copyright and has full rights reserved as you know. You have now used two images, one was lifted and posted, which as you know is against the law. You then embedded a second picture and I have removed the embedding feature and asked you several times on Twitter to remove this image. Have a little professionalism and professional courtesy and respect towards photography and photographers. Remove my picture.

          • duckrabbit says:

            Hi Edmond,

            I’m interested in your idea of ‘professionalism and professional courtesy and respect towards photography and photographers.’

            I agree emebedding your photo was not respectul. It was not meant to be. It was meant to illustrate the fallacy of the claims you are making on your blog that a photo is an orphan when it loses its metadata. How does spreading fear amonsgt photographers by writing things that are simply not true show respect?

            ‘For those who don’t know, a professional photographer’s income also comes from licensing of images. For some, this is the majority of their income. It is our livelihood. The government just took that away. For some, this could well mean bankruptcy and unemployment.
            Consider for a moment that the billions of images that get uploaded to various websites, on the whole, have their metadata stripped out … Your work, even something you shot a minute ago and uploaded, just became an orphan work.’

  13. I really doubt that the ERRA will enable the mass replacement of our sales with free use of orphan works or ECL sales. OWs are unlikely to have much of an effect on the professional market. They’ll be priced at something like the same rate as non OW pics and there will be a moderately onerous extra level of admin & delay in using them. Plus it’ll be harder to find good useful pics (no keywords, zillions of files, largely junk).

    Try this. Take a paper or a mag, look at the photos in it and try to source some replacements using OWs. Now do it again with Getty, Alamy etc. Which way do you think picture desks and researchers will do it?

    Don’t forget the current situation – the old 20th century copyright law just doesn’t work – thousands of my images are being used on the web without payment or permission. There’s no way I can find time to tackle any but the most egregious cases.

    Things simply cannot remain unchanged. The law is just no bloody good in the 21st century. The law WILL change. Some kind of solution for OWs is needed and will appear. Some kind of ECL will appear. Just Say No has never been successful. The ONLY constructive thing we can do is to try and shape what’s coming. We can’t Canute our way back to 1990.

    I want us to find ways to use the ERRA as an opportunity. We can’t do that with our heels dug in trying to drag it all back to the good old days. Yes, it’s risky – but less risky than simply being left behind with neither input nor credibility.

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi David,

      Thanks for the comment.

      I think that you are spot on.

    • Justin Leighton says:

      Nice snap David why’s my byline !

    • Thanks David.
      And Ben.
      Right behind you. Just less eloquently.

      It seems as if the bottom end of the market is disappearing anyway. When everyone has a camera in their pocket capable of producing an in-focus, properly exposed image that’ll hold up on a dps, the job of photography has to move on. Mere technical adequacy does not qualify an image as saleable any more. I think that’s the issue that a lot of photographers are struggling with.

      I can only see OWs populating the lower end of the market, and that boat’s already sailed. Whether this bill is a trojan which will lead to further inroads into the livelihoods of photographers in the future – I don’t know. But shaping the discussion and protecting those things that actually matter seems a good place to start. The debate over copyright is difficult and nuanced, and there are no easy answers – witness all the recent high-profile cases – so shouting your position with your fingers in your ears really won’t help.

      Spending time and energy trying to protect something that has almost no value is a fool’s errand. The only way anyone’s going to stay afloat on these stormy seas is to produce work of real quality, intelligence and commitment.
      Much like Duckrabbit, as it happens.

  14. Bob M says:

    Yet another poorly researched view on the implications of the ERRA . Full of assumptions and misleading innuendo .
    So let ‘s look at a just a few points . What constitutes a “diligent search ” . Where is this definition in the act ? You might have thought that if this is such an innocent piece of legislation , then this matter would have been seriously addressed before proceeding . Despite question HMG and the IPO for years , they have been unable to come up with a definition .
    An earlier version of this post stated that STOP43 is funded by Getty. This is not true.
    You said”In that sense the act is a real threat to the finances of companies and photographers who make a living from selling stock.”
    Anybody who is a serious professional working to specific commissions knows the hugely damaging effect that this bill will have on their livelihood . We ( yes I’m one of those whinging professional photographers who has to feed his kids ) will lose the ability to grant exclusive licences to our clients , and with that we lose our income . all because of ill thought out legislation and the demand from both large corporations for cheap or free content . The stock issue is not the overall driving force here .

    The gains will be to the likes of google ( who avoid UK tax ) and the loss will be to UK citizens , because hard though it may be to accept , the creative industry in the UK is second only to the banking sector in terms of it’s economic importance .

    BTW shouldn’t your statement “An earlier version of this post stated that STOP43 is funded by Getty. This is not true.” be in much larger type ?

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Bob,

      ‘Anybody who is a serious professional working to specific commissions knows the hugely damaging effect that this bill will have on their livelihood ‘

      Once again, big statements founded on fear with no evidence to back them.

      Here’s another one

      ‘ photographers who has to feed his kids ) will lose the ability to grant exclusive licences to our clients , and with that we lose our income.’

      No evidence to support such a claim.

      ‘BTW shouldn’t your statement “An earlier version of this post stated that STOP43 is funded by Getty. This is not true.” be in much larger type ?’

      Not unless you have a problem reading it.

  15. Tim Gander says:

    But you do try to make sense of the act by setting out how you believe photographers can work with it. This may not be an outright defence of the act, but your response is as ill-thought out as some of the act’s attackers’ arguments. You might wish to see my blog to get where I stand on this: http://wp.me/pGClg-FH

    Indeed it takes money to own the tools to do the job, but should there be a greater cost to defending one’s work? Copyright is free regardless of whether a photographer spends £5 on a camera or £5,000. There is a point of democracy and freedom of speech here. Of course everyone will still have the freedom of speech, but only those with means and resources to defend their output will be encouraged to speak.

    I still don’t see why every photographer should have to run a separate database of low-res files just to defend their work. How about a law which says “if you can’t find the owner, use a work for which the owner CAN be found”. For the love of God, out of the billions of images already on the web, is it so hard to find an attributable work for which permission can be sought? And ANY extra amount of data, however small, is greatly increased by A) the number of people having to archive their thumbnails and B) the number of years the data needs to sit there. It’s not an inconsiderable amount even at low-res, but as usual these issues are too far into the future for anyone to bother considering properly now. I know this isn’t really an environmental issue, and I’m not an environmental campaigner, but I do get exasperated at the glib way people just say “oh stick it on a server” as if it had no consequence whatsoever.

    I’m sorry, I often enjoy your output, but this position doesn’t seem well thought-through. The ERRA might turn out not to be the huge threat that many feel it is, but it is a problem and my understanding is it’s been drawn up in such a way that a secretary of state can go back to it later, change it and make it a colossal problem without any recourse to Parliament. What we see isn’t the end-game, it’s just Act 1 of a play which is yet to unfold.

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Tim,

      ‘But you do try to make sense of the act by setting out how you believe photographers can work with it’

      Photographers will have to work with it Tim. As DAvid Hoffman comments ‘We can’t Canute our way back to 1990.’

      ‘Should there be a greater cost to defending one’s work?’

      There always has been. If someone infringes your copyright now you have to take action. No change.

      ‘Copyright is free regardless of whether a photographer spends £5 on a camera or £5,000’

      Yes and under the new act, contrary to the scaremongering, it will continue to exist.

      How about a law which says “if you can’t find the owner, use a work for which the owner CAN be found”.

      Great idea.

      • We already have that law.. If you can’t find the owner, you don’t use the work.. just as it is now. Rather than use it and pay a license to some government backed scheme that will hold on to any monies collected until the owner is found…. but how does the owner know it’s been used? How are they supposed to come forward and make a claim for their money if they don’t know the photo has been used anyway…. At least with the current system, only one person ‘gets away’ with it, rather than the new system where a company will ‘get away’ with it, or at the very least, have to pay possibly a much lower license fee than the rights owner may be entitled to, and a NGO filling it’s coffers with money that may never see the rightful owner….

        There’s no need for this act/law – the only people it serves to benefit are the ones who don’t want to pay for creative work… probably the same people advertising those wonderful ‘opportunities’ for photographers to get their work seen, if they provide it for free.

  16. Lewis Whyld says:

    A few corrections to your post:

    Firstly, in bold text you claim “it only creates an orphan work if the originator of the photo cannot be traced”. This is exactly wrong. The entire law turns upon a ‘diligent search’, the definition of which is still not known. You may be easily traceable using a certain method, but if that method is not included in the definition of diligent search then a company won’t need to do it.

    Your reliance on the reverse image search engine, and your 3 examples to prove it, is negligent advice. We are fighting to have the search engine included in the ‘diligent search’ criteria, but describing it as some kind of panacea before we know if companies will even have to use it is giving your readers incorrect advice.

    Even if it is eventually included, can we really rely on a google image search function to protect our images from missuse by companies such as … google? (I find Tineye even less reliable.)

    Beyond that google and facebook are attempting to replace online jpgs with a new format called WebP (google it). Will this be supported by the reverse image search engine? What if the image you are searching with is a jpg but the infringing image is WebP, or the other way around? This is happening now and you seem unaware of it. We can safely assume other factors will come into play in the future that will muddy the water further. Still think the reverse search engine is a solve-all?

    Now imagine a photo that goes ‘viral’ – a photographer posts it online but it gets stripped of metadata by twitter etc and spreads across the internet. He sees this and makes a blog post including the image, his name and the metadata so he will be traceable should someone wish to use it commercially. Reverse search engine results will bring up tens of thousands of uses that happened before he got his blog post up, all of them without metadata or his name. Sure, one of the thousands of results is his, but he won’t be found in a diligent search relying on the image search engine.

    I shoot 360 degree photographs, the image search engine doesn’t cater for those at all. What about a hi-res freeze frame stolen from a time-lapse photography video?

    As photographers we need to be fully involved in defining what the diligent search means but even then we can be caught out by changing technology. Trying to convince people that a simple image search engine will protect their copyright for the foreseeable future is irresponsible and entirely wrong. Furthermore, writing a blog pertaining to be from a position of authority on the subject opens you up to claims of Professional Negligence if anyone relies on your advice. I just hope no-one does.

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Lewis,

      its hard to debate with someone whose starting point is ‘This act will kill the Media industry.’

      ‘Your reliance on the reverse image search engine, and your 3 examples to prove it, is negligent advice.’

      No. It’s not advice. It’s a simple illsutration of how an image can be traced.

      ‘describing it as some kind of panacea before we know if companies will even have to use it is giving your readers incorrect advice.’

      I did not describe it as a panacea because I don’t see a major problem. Unlike you I’m not worried that the act will kill the media industry.

      ‘Trying to convince people that a simple image search engine will protect their copyright for the foreseeable future is irresponsible and entirely wrong.’

      Actually I think I demonstated just how little protection copyright currently offers by screengrabbing your photo! You need to work with reality.

      That said you make some sensible arguments that might convince people. Why didn’t you use these in the first instance instead of predicting photogeddon?

  17. Bob M says:

    I said :Anybody who is a serious professional working to specific commissions knows the hugely damaging effect that this bill will have on their livelihood ‘

    You said “Once again, big statements founded on fear with no evidence to back them.”

    Err ….. the evidence is that professional photographers are up in arms about this about this bill . We know the implications .

    I said ‘ photographers who has to feed his kids ) will lose the ability to grant exclusive licences to our clients , and with that we lose our income.’

    You said “No evidence to support such a claim.”

    But I do have evidence to support that . I ‘ve had many cases where my work has been stolen . Under the 1998 copyright act I’ve been able to pursue the guilty party . This new legislation will enable a third party to sell my images without my consent .

    And please don’t answer that with the diligent search red herring when you neither you or the government can define what that means .

    “As DAvid Hoffman comments ‘We can’t Canute our way back to 1990.’

    But we can defend our rights under the Berne Convention.

    If you ar anybody wants to see just what this bill does , look here :

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/03/instagram_act_explained/

    Oh , and by the way An earlier version of this post stated that STOP43 is funded by Getty. This is not true.On what basis was that statement made ?

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Bob,

      not sure about your idea of people being up in arms as evidence. People are up in arms about gay marriage in France …

      If a third party sells your work you can still sue them.

      ‘Oh , and by the way An earlier version of this post stated that STOP43 is funded by Getty. This is not true.On what basis was that statement made ?’

      It was a mistake due to misreading an article which I corrected. I often make mistakes. Last time I checked I’m human.

      I think you might want to read my latest posts about Myths and Facts around this act. If you prefer to believe the myths that’s up to you.

      • Simon Crofts says:

        This entire post was a big mistake. It pains me to respond on here, as I don’t want to support the Duckrabbit self-publicity stunt, but someone has to counter this rubbish.

        You have reposted the IPO’s half-truths/propaganda. The one where they misquote the critics and give half truth in replies.

        So here is an IPO myth/propaganda-buster response. I’ve just typed it hastily, and I’m there are some bits where I could be more accurate in my corrections, it’s always possible to pick holes in it, but one thing that I can be sure of is that it’s a more accurate representation of the facts than the IPO’s rubbish:

        IPO’s ‘Myth’ – the provisions remove the automatic right to copyright for owners of photos posted online
        IPO propaganda ‘Fact’ – The powers do not remove copyright for photographs or any other works subject to copyright.
        The truth: no one has said that the provisions remove the automatic right to copyright – at least no one that I’ve read – and I’ve read a lot. The provisions are rather killing the value and meaning of copyright. Copyright is the right to prevent your work being used without your permission. Now people will be able to use your work without your permission. The provisions are killing copyright. Yes, the automatic right to copyright is still there – but it will be the automatic right to a corpse.

        IPO’s supposed ‘Myth’ – anyone can use a photo they have found on the internet as an “orphan” if they cannot find the copyright owner after a search
        IPO propaganda ‘Fact’ – A licence must be obtained to use a work as an “orphan”. This will require the applicant to undertake a diligent search, which will then need to be verified by the independent authorising body which the Government will appoint before a work can be used.
        The truth: So: it seems the IPO agrees: anyone can use a photo they have found on the internet as an “orphan” if they cannot find the copyright owner after a search.

        IPO’s supposed ‘Myth’ – works will have their metadata stripped and be licensed en masse as orphans under the Extended Collective Licensing provisions
        IPO’s propaganda ‘Fact’ – the Orphan Works scheme and Extended Collective Licensing (ECL) are separate and the orphan works scheme is about licensing of individual works.The Government will have no power to impose ECL on a sector, and the safeguards included in the scheme mean that ECL is only likely to be an option where there is strong existing support for collective licensing. Any rights holder who is worried about how their work could be used under an ECL scheme will always retain the ability to opt out.
        The truth: errr, who actually has said that works that have been declared orphans may be licensed en masse under ECL? Are the IPO just making all this stuff up?

        IPO’s supposed ‘Myth’ – anyone will be able to use my photos for free if they cannot find who owns them?
        IPO’s propaganda ‘Fact’ – If a work is licensed following the verification of the diligent search, there will be a licence fee payable up-front for its use. The fee will be set at the going rate.
        The truth: that’s great, the government licensing body will receive a fee for use of my work. As far as I’m concerned, from my point of view, that is free use of my work. My work is being used and I’m not being paid. The fact that I am being robbed not only by the person using my work but also by the government, colluding to use my work under a state-sponsored scam, does not mean that it’s not free use of my work.

        IPO’s supposed ‘Myth’ – anyone can use my photos without my permission
        IPO’s propaganda ‘Fact’ – Anyone wishing to use a work as an orphan must first undertake a diligent search for the rights-holder which is then verified with permission to use the work granted by the Government appointed independent authorising body. If the work is not genuinely orphan then the rights-holder should be found, if the search is not properly diligent, no licence will be issued.
        The truth: so that means – ‘anyone can use my photos without my permission’.

        IPO’s Myth – the Act is the Instagram Act
        Fact – Given the steps that must be taken before an orphan work can be copied, such as the diligent search, verification of the search and payment of a going rate fee, it is unlikely that the scheme will be attractive in circumstances where a substitute photograph is available. The rate payable for an orphan work will not undercut non-orphans.
        The truth: the IPO haven’t heard of the laws of supply and demand. A large supply of images to the market will inevitably reduce market prices. Even Duckrabbitblog has managed to work that one out. So ‘the rate payable for an orphan work will not undercut non-orphan works’ – by greatly increasing supply to the market, prices are going to drop for non-orphan works. It’s simple economics. Also, how on earth will the government-regulated body know what I might have charged for a particular image? How can they assess its scarcity, its exclusivity value? Or whether it should have been sold at all? They can’t.

        IPO’s supposed ‘Myth’ – a company can take my work and then sub-license it without my knowledge, approval or any payment
        IPO’s propaganda ‘Fact’ – The licences to use an orphan work will not allow sub-licensing.
        The truth: There is nothing in the Act that prevents the regulations allowing sub-licensing. The first set of regulations may not allow it (we don’t actually know yet), but someone at some point, in a year or two or three or four, is going to see this as a great commercial opportunity and introduce it into the next set of regulations, or the one after that. Copyright will be a dead concept by then anyway, so what’s the harm? Before you pluck the goose, you have to strangle it.

        IPO’s supposed ‘Myth’ – the stripping of metadata creates an orphan work
        IPO’s propaganda ‘Fact’ – the absence or removal of metadata does not in itself make a work “orphan” or allow its use under the orphan works scheme
        The truth: the stripping of metadata is one of the key steps to disassociating a work from its owner. It creates a work that (unless there is another way of tracing the owner) can now be declared an orphan work should someone want to use it without contacting the owner. Stripping of metadata has been carried on on an industrial scale by the likes of the BBC. The IPO has on a number of occasions declared its mistaken belief that stripping of metadata is a criminal offence. It isn’t, which is why orgs like the BBC have been able to get away with it. If the IPO can’t even get basic facts like this right, how can we trust them on understanding the more complex bits?

        IPO’s supposed ‘Myth’ – I will have to register my photos to claim copyright
        IPO’s propaganda ‘Fact’ – Copyright will continue to be automatic and there is no need to register a work in order for it to enjoy copyright protection.
        The truth: yes, and copyright- the right to stop people copying work without my permission – will no longer exist as such. It will remain as the ghost of the right to say no only if whoever wants to use your work happens to be able to find you. Will it be necessary to register your photos to claim copyright? Yes, if you want copyright in the old sense – you’re going to have to make your pictures readily searchable. There is a government proposal to create what is in effect a super-register called the Digital Copyright Exchange. If you want to have copyright in the old sense – the sense that we understand it, not the corpse, then you will have to register your images one way or another. The details aren’t worked out.

        If you want to understand what orphan works and ECL are all about: go and watch the BBC’s excellent documentary on Google and the World Brain. It explains beautifully what the copyright killers are trying to achieve.

        • George Bidder says:

          Don’t waste your time Simon.

          The loud and uninformed views of middle class, ex-BBC know-it-alls are available on hundreds of new media company blogs.

          They love the sound of their own voices enough already. Don’t encourage them.

          Funny though how it’s always the least qualified at these digital media sites that get to make the blog posts.

        • One last question Simon as you seem uncommonly well acquainted with the law surrounding copyright: in your penultimate “Myth” paragraph above you say

          “The IPO has on a number of occasions declared its mistaken belief that stripping of metadata is a criminal offence.”

          I understood that it was. The Act refers to:

          “Infringement by making adaptation or act done in relation to adaptation.”

          and with specific reference to

          “in relation to a computer program, means an arrangement or altered version of the program or a translation of it;]”

          I understood this to apply to image files. A jpg file is simply a computer programme that instructs a computer to show/create an image, it is not ‘an image’ until it so rendered digitally.

          My assumption has always been that this therefore makes ‘stripping metadata’ an offence as it is a fundamental alteration of the image’s code, but with the added intention of making (in some instances) the image ownership untraceable. It’s just that nobody bothers to pursue this under the law.

          Thanks for continuing the conversation.

          • Simon Crofts says:

            Hi John, no that doesn’t make a criminal offence out of metadata stripping. For at least three reasons. First because the section you refer to is a civil matter, not criminal. Second because because the making an adaptation provision in S.21 only refers to ‘literary, dramatic or musical work”. It doesn’t apply to photos. Third because metadata isn’t a ‘computer programme’.

            And finally because there is a separate section which deals with metadata stripping: ‘electronic rights management information’. S. 296ZG of the Act:
            http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZG

            But that section only makes metadata stripping a civil matter (with no effective remedies, so that Section is entirely emasculated) not a criminal one.

            I think the IPO most likely just got confused about S. 296ZG and didn’t read it properly. Law isn’t their strong point: the orphan works proposals are clearly illegal under international law – Article 9 of Berne Convention, but that doesn’t seem to bother them in the least.

        • Thanks Simon.

          But civil or criminal it DOES apply to computer programmes (see excerpt below), which is what jpg files are (surely?). Without a computer they have no ‘substance’ they are simply lines of code. And removing some of those lines of code – the metadata – is an ‘alteration’.

          Does that make sense?

          The Act states: (quote)

          (3)In this Part “adaptation”—
          (a)in relation to a literary [F1work, [F2other than a computer program or a database, or in relation to a]] dramatic work, means—

          (i)a translation of the work;

          [F3(ab)in relation to a computer program, means an arrangement or altered version of the program or a translation of it;]” (end quote)

          Or am totally deluding myself here? (Would not be the first time!)

          But in all seriousness it’s always useful to tease out the precise meaning of these legal phrases for therein often lies ‘protection’.

  18. Charles Cutmore says:

    Just so I know when I meet you next Ben.
    In favour of this bill or not?
    Yes or no

  19. Charles Cutmore says:

    If you are indifferent then why waste so much time trying to prove this point?
    Is it simply an excersise in attracting viewing figures to your blog?

    • duckrabbit says:

      Indifferent to the bill. Clearly not to the lies and propaganda being spread around it.

      Stop Press: Blogger writes post that he hopes people will read ….

      • Simon Crofts says:

        “Stop Press: Blogger writes post that he hopes people will read ….”

        Stop Press: Blogger writes drivel that undermines the hard work put in over the course of years by a lot of dedicated individuals trying to support his and others’ interests, in the hope of attracting controversy and self-publicity.

        • duckrabbit says:

          Hi Simon,

          if writing drivel can so easily ‘undermine the hard work’, what does that say about how the hard work stands up to debate?

          • Simon Crofts says:

            You undermine the hard work by making a series of foolish statements at the beginning, then follow with the qualifications and the common sense at the end. This is your self-publicity technique, which unfortunately helps to set the debate back.

            But you don’t care about the actual issues, do you? You just want to create a fog of misinformation. As the IPO want to do.

          • duckrabbit says:

            Yes I am part of a big bad conspiracy with the IPO to rob you of your rights by expressing the opinion that the ‘media isn’t about to end’, commiting crimes against photographers for which I can be locked up or trying to win an argument STOP43 style by mentioning Stalin (Godwin’s rule)

            http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodwinsLaw

  20. Bob M says:

    “not sure about your idea of people being up in arms as evidence. People are up in arms about gay marriage in France …’

    It’s evidence of the way photographers feel , which is what you questioned

    “If a third party sells your work you can still sue them.”

    Only until this legislation is enforced in it’s present form . After that my images can be sold without my consent .

    BTW , I notice that despite being asked twice by me you still avoid the definition of diligent search .

    “It was a mistake due to misreading an article which I corrected. I often make mistakes.”

    Absolutely .

    “I think you might want to read my latest posts about Myths and Facts around this act. ”

    You might want to read http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/03/instagram_act_explained/

  21. Charles Cutmore says:

    You’re indifferent to the bill but not about other peoples opinions to it. Yet you haven’t had time to read or digest the bill yourself.
    Anything else we should know?
    Whats your opinions on how it will affect your work and what you produce?

  22. Bob M says:

    “I did read it Bob, but I don’t believe everything I read.”

    In which case , you may want to question both the government’s and the IPO’s statements a little more .

    BTW … still no definition of diligent search then ?

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Bob,

      IPOS statements should be questioned. Intelligently.

      I think you’re asking the wrong person for a definition of ‘deligent search’.

  23. Tim Gander says:

    Like I say, I’m not saying the ERRA is the end of the world, just that as it stands it does appear to be badly drafted and full of opportunities for creators to be bulldozed into the sidelines. Yes, we’ll have to work with it because it is an act of law now. The question will be how much we have to work with it.

    You seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright as was and copyright as will be. If I create a work now, I only have to pay to fight infringement if it happens. In future it’s more likely I’ll have to put resources into registering and protecting the work further AND paying to fight infringement if it happens. I can’t help thinking you’re just “ducking” the issues for the fun of it. I can’t believe you’re actually as short-sighted as you’re pretending to be here.

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Tim,

      ‘In future it’s more likely I’ll have to put resources into registering and protecting the work further AND paying to fight infringement if it happens. I can’t help thinking you’re just “ducking” the issues for the fun of it. I can’t believe you’re actually as short-sighted as you’re pretending to be here.’

      Actually this is what the IPO has to say on that:

      ‘Any person wishing to use an orphan work will need to apply for a licence to do so and payment for the licence payable up-front at the going rate. As part of that process they must undertake a diligent search for the
      rights-holder which will then be verified by the Government appointed independent authorising body. Only then will a licence to use the orphan work be issued. Licences will be for specified purposes and subject to a licence fee which is payable up-front at a rate appropriate to the type of work and type of use. The licence fee will then be held for the missing rights-holder to claim.’

      If they image has been used unliscensed then the same process will apply as before.

  24. Lewis Whyld says:

    “you make some sensible arguments that might convince people. Why didn’t you use these in the first instance instead of predicting photogeddon?”

    Well, ‘This act will kill the media industry’ is a quote from @stop43uk, I retweeted it as a quote (so you should have been aware whose words they were) as I thought it was an interesting opinion that I wanted people to be aware of. The fact that you seem to attribute the words to me is just sloppy journalism.

    “I think I demonstrated just how little protection copyright currently offers by screengrabbing your photo!” – Bragging about ripping off a photographers personal photograph is not a test of copyright protection, it’s just an unfriendly quote and an unprofessional way for a photography blog to conduct itself.

    The true test is done through the courts. Just for the record please have it in writing that I’ve never received any requests to use that image from either you (Benjamin Chesterton) personally or the entity ‘duckrabbit’. As a result no permission has been granted by myself, the copyright owner. Moreover the post you took it from was a discussion on the technique of using real lightning as a backdrop for a portrait. You’ve made no comment or review on the contents of the photograph or the blog post it was originally posted in. Furthermore there is no link included for a viewer to see the photograph in it’s original form on my website. Perhaps you think you know the law better than me, but I advise you to take it down until we discuss the fee.

    I actually take displeasure in a photography blog stealing my photograph then throwing it in my face like that. It’s just trolling and comes across as extremely unpleasant. What kind of photography site rips-off a photographers work, then throws it back in the face of the photographer who put in the time, effort and expense to produce that work?

    “No. It’s not advice.” I’m glad that you’ve backed down and admitted your post does not constitute advice for photographers.

    I didn’t know anything about duckrabbit until now, but i’m genuinely left with the impression that it’s a self serving site happy to rip-off photographers in an attempt to drive traffic. I’d like to opt-out please.

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Lewis,

      Clearly in copying and pasting STOP43’s and then tweeting STOP43’s words and then urging people to sign the petition that in no way reflects on your thinking …

      ‘Bragging about ripping off a photographers personal photograph is not a test of copyright protection,’

      Right so it doesn’t demonstate how effective the law is in protecting copyright? That’s like saying the only test of the effectiveness of the law on cannabis is in the courts …

      Happy to take the photo down. I didn’t put it up to give you pleasure, just to highlight how daft many of the things currently being distributed on the web about the act like your tweet are.

      Point of law. I didn’t steal your photo. I published an unliscensed copy of it. I’m sure your aware of the difference.

      I didn’t know anything about duckrabbit until now, but i’m genuinely left with the impression that it’s a self serving site happy to rip-off photographers in an attempt to drive traffic. I’d like to opt-out please.

      Thanks for the feedback.

      • Simon Crofts says:

        F5(4A)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) is liable—
        (a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding [F3£50,000], or both;
        (b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.]

  25. Lewis Whyld says:

    I think as proof of the current effectiveness of copyright law your post has done remarkably well. Slowly but surely (and not a little begrudgingly) you’ve backed down on your unauthorised usage of pictures. However, as an illustration of the state of play under the new law it falls flat on it’s face. C’est la vie.

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Lewis

      If it makes you feel better that I ‘backed’ down because you commented be my guest. If you also think that makes a good example of the effectiveness of copyright law in action then I, and I would imagine most other photographers reading this will find you deluded.

      I’m sorry its not clear to you that posting your picture, stripped of it’s metadata, shows that such an act does not make an orphan of the work, which has been consistantly claimed.

  26. Simon Crofts says:

    “Point of law. I didn’t steal your photo. I published an unliscensed copy of it. I’m sure your aware of the difference.”

    Point of law. Publishing an unlicensed copy of the image in the course of a business (this is a business blog isn’t it?) is a criminal offence commonly known as ‘copyright theft’. S.107(2A) CDPA 1988.

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Simon,

      If you think a crime has been committed why don’t you report it to the police?

      If by any chance they tell you that you’re wasting your time then you can at least move on and get angry with them for having an opinion.

      • Simon Crofts says:

        I have no desire to report it to the police. I’m just correcting your mistake (your ‘point of law’) that what you did isn’t a criminal offence.

        I hate to see the spread of misinformation. Which is why I’m taking part in your whole self-publicity exercise, correcting your mistakes.

  27. Tim Gander says:

    Diligent search, going rate, interesting times.

  28. Pete Jenkins says:

    I read Duckrabbit posts on a regular basis, and I always appreciate learning more about stuff, especially things about which I have little or no knowledge.

    This time you are writing about something which I do know a little.

    Copyright is a useful thing for professional photographers – it allows them to licence their work – much like hiring a car. One pays for use under certain conditions and limits and pays accordingly. Photojournalism, editorial photography has been evolving and changing for a number of years now – in fact more or less since the 1988 Copyright Act came into being (I am UK based so biased in that direction).

    Digital imaging has changed how photographs are processed and made it easier for the average ‘Jo’ to acquire usable images – none of that tedious messing about in the darkroom with noxious smelly chemicals for starters.

    Publishing has also changed, alongside the rise in the Internet, conventional publishing – say newspapers has changed hugely. Papers use less images, are frequently smaller in size, commission far less work than they used to etc. The market for professional editorial photographers in this area is shrinking. The one area where the true professional can still exist is in bespoke and specialist imagery – providing the kind of pictures that only the specialist can come up with. Examples of this might be air to air, air to ground and sub aqua. All of these require specialist equipment and knowledge and not just a cheap mobile phone and computer.

    Photographers use the Internet a lot – it has become the shop window for many, and in any case their clients wish to use their work in their presentations advertising etc. One work is on third party sites most photographers lose control of it. Indeed there have been cases reported where images have been used without a photographer’s knowledge and then copied from that site. It does not take long for an image to become separated from the details of its creator; sometimes by accident, sometimes through ignorance, and sometimes deliberately. It happens a lot.

    I am interested in this diligent search thing. As a concept I still don’t fully understand what this would consist of. I tried your idea of Google search, and well yes it does work sometimes, but actually I didn’t find it that reliable. It frequently brings up stuff which is so far from the original that it is difficult to understand how! I am not sure that Google search is the answer – I don’t think Google think it is either ? I also looked at Tineye – I have been using Tineye for years. It is good and accurate, but so little of the web has been catalogued by Tineye that it too is not enough. I personally use Picscout and all my recent work is registered there. But this too is far from perfect and only of use if the work is registered and so is the searcher.

    So assuming someone defines a diligent search and one is done, is that enough? I still don’t know. Having been a photographer for a while I know that I have a huge number of images ‘out there’, many of which I have lost control of. Newspapers and magazines have had my images for years, and due to the UKs quaint copyright laws which give me copyright of my own work as a matter of principle, but not the right to be identified as the author of my own work, (magazines and newspapers can publish my images without attribution and many of them do). So my pics get published without my name alongside them. These pics are often copied, and re published, and it is easy to see how orphans come about. Do I publish all my work on my own website? No of course not. We are talking thousands of images, (potentially scores of thousands of images). The way that some observers are writing suggest that I should not just publish all my images (where and how?) simply so that I can stop my work becoming orphaned! Doesn’t that sound bizarre?

    I am resigned to the fact that should an image hub of the type Hargreaves has mentioned and Stop43 have advocated get set up then I will have to register all my current work there, but what about the many scores of thousands of images that weren’t digital to start off with but have become digitised in the course of publication (bulk of my careers work)?

    All this extra work just so that people can’t do what they shouldn’t be doing in the first place – using my images without my permission!

    • duckrabbit says:

      HI Pete,

      thanks for your comment.

      ‘So assuming someone defines a diligent search and one is done, is that enough? I still don’t know. Having been a photographer for a while I know that I have a huge number of images ‘out there’, many of which I have lost control of. ‘

      Sounds like copyright isn’t really working for you. Not suggesting the new law will make it any better.

      Please re-read my post again. I am commenting that the photogeddon that STOP43 are predicting will not happen. That a lot of propaganda is being pumped out about the act (as evidenced in the post).

  29. Bob M says:

    “I think you’re asking the wrong person for a definition of ‘deligent search’.”

    So even though you think we will be protected by a clause that says any user of potential orphan works would have to carry out a diligent search , you don’t know what that diligent search would be . Says it all really .

    Well now that you have not managed to refute any of my original posting , despite being given many opportunities , my work here is done , so I’ll go back to my day job .

    Bye

    • duckrabbit says:

      I’m sorry that you came here mistakingly hoping that I would define ‘dilligent’ for you Bob.

      I think that’s a question you need to be putting to the IPO.

  30. Matt says:

    Anyone can do a screen grab of any image. The issue is too complex.

    We should not even be talking about orphan works.

    Ideally you should NOT print ANY image UNLESS you have a licence for it.

    Would you steal a lawnmower left on a front garden? Would you go and drink a cup of coffee sitting at a table in a coffee shop? Thou shall not steal says one of the commandments. IPTC, Metadata do not mean anything, especially when sites strip it off. Quite simply, if it is not yours then do not publish it.

    When someone runs a blog, runs a website, they are “publishing.” Thus print lies, print something libellous you should expect a court order or at least a knock at the door. Same goes for pictures.

    You should NOT print ANY image UNLESS you have a licence for it.

    If you do not strike up an agreement with the author then the law SHOULD be that you should leave it alone – be it a bit of music, a sculpture or indeed an image.

    As a sports photographer, why should I sit back and let bloggers use my images that have been stolen from newspaper sites to improve their blog? I paid for the cameras, I paid for the travel, my work is mine. I can charge what I like. End of.

    As a artist I can sell to whom I want. If I dont want The Times to use my images then I simply do not syndicate to them.

    • duckrabbit says:

      Hi Matt,

      ‘Ideally you should NOT print ANY image UNLESS you have a licence for it.’

      Well that would be a chanhe in the law.

      Fair use or fair dealing is not a liscence but can be used to publish an image. You would need to get rid of this.

  31. Simon Crofts says:

    By the way Duckrabbit, you are aware that you were guilty of publishing what you would no doubt regard as the same alarmist Photogeddon on your own blog. Don’t you?:-

    http://www.duckrabbit.info/2010/02/photography-is-fcked-this-is-not-a-joke/

    • duckrabbit says:

      Yes we allow different people to have opinions on the blog. It’s called debate Simon and different point of views. I know since you asked me to delete this post this is not something that you are entirely comfortable with but it’s not a problem for me.

      • Simon Crofts says:

        I’m delighted to have a sensible debate about this issue – something photographer have been trying to do for years. Unfortunately, we’ve been the only ones who wanted to talk about it – we’ve always been met with a wall of evasion and bald statements avoiding the issues.

        You want a contentious debate generated by misinformation, stealing photos, and because it brings traffic to your blog, which makes you money.

        I want information and sensible discussion, because I care deeply about the issues and spend a lot of time and effort working on them and trying to promote photographers interests.

        That’s the difference between us.

  32. Matt says:

    Thats what I am saying Mr Duckrabbit – the law should be changed and made more simple in line with shoplifting for example – pay (or get permission) or dont take.

    When I am the copyright holder and licence the image out – especially with exclusive arrangements, quite simply the rights should stay with me on where the image should go. Anything else is totally wrong. I hope you can agree on this.

    Although people correctly use the term licence, it is still ‘theft’ – ie taking and using something without permission. Tesco licence you to take the pack of cornflakes for the agreed price of £1.42 – they sell you the product.

    You make a documentary, sell to Channel 4 – the Discovery Channel dont ‘take it’ and re-broadcast it do they under silly fair use myths.

    • Hi Matt – just a heads up to steer you away from your belief that ‘fair use’ is a “myth”. It is not. As you mention Channel 4 – here’s their guidance on ‘Fair Dealing’ (as ‘Fair Use’ is known in the UK.) (and link below to source).

      ………………………………………………………………….

      7E Channel 4 : Guide to the Law of Fair Dealing – Channel 4 & Five

      Guide to the Law of Fair Dealing – Channel 4 & Five

      This note is intended as a guide only and legal advice from Channel 4’s or Five’s legal and compliance department must be sought at an early stage.

      What is Fair Dealing?

      ‘Fair Dealing’ is a term, which describes the circumstances in which copyright works or extracts from them, can be used, without permission from or payment to the copyright owner.

      How does it Work?

      Section 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003) sets out the conditions that must be met to legitimately ‘fair deal’ a copyright work.
      There are two forms of fair dealing set out under section 30: –
      for the purpose of reporting current events; and,

      for the purpose of criticism or review.

      ……………………………………………………………………

      Link:

      http://www.independentproducerhandbook.co.uk/374/7e-channel-4-guide-to-the-law-of-fair-dealing-channel-4-and-five/7e-channel-4-guide-to-the-law-of-fair-dealing-channel-4-five.html

  33. Simon Crofts says:

    So let’s see – you criticise Stop43/Lewis for saying:

    “This act will kill the Media industry. Photographers, artists, novelist and music industry. STOP IT NOW”

    And yet on your blog you published statements about orphan works saying:-

    “Photography is f$cked. This is not a joke.”

    and

    “Copyright in photos is essentially going to cease to exist”

    Hypocrisy in action?

    • duckrabbit says:

      Yes we allow different people to have opinions on the blog. If you looks at the top of the blog you will see a byline. That relates to the person writing the post. You will find in some publications that different people publish different points of view. It’s called debate Simon. I know since you asked me to delete this post this is not something that you are entirely comfortable with but it’s not a problem for me or for anyone writing on the blog.

  34. Tom White says:

    Well, this post just prompted me to do one of my irregular searches on the internet for photos I’ve taken. Just found an architect using photos from a restaurant which were originally used in a NY Times review. No attribution. No royalty check from the NY Times, definitely didn’t contact me. So, they just got contacted with a choice – license my images or remove them.

    Students ask me all the time about watermarking etc. I tell them they can if they want. I don’t (currently). I also don’t lose any sleep over the fact that someone may be stealing my images. If they make enough money out of one of my pictures that it becomes highly visible (say on a Nike Ad on the side of a bus, or a slideshow on an architect’s website that pops up when I google a well known restaurant I shot) then I’ll do something about it. If I never find out about it, then how can I get upset about it? I’d rather spend my time and money pitching for that next job, or working hard on the current assignment I am getting paid for.

    Ideally I’d like to get paid every time someone uses my photos to further their own commercial business, but I unless I hire someone to constantly search for me, then it’s unlikely I will know about every single case.

    I can see the issue with the potential misuse of Orphan Works, but I’m not sure it will lead to a greater proliferation of unlicensed images. There are enough of them already, and to be honest, it seems it’s only a tiny percentage that really make enough money for the copyright holder to bother pursuing. And I definitely don’t think it will be more difficult to prove you are the copyright holder (Your honour, I’d like to submit exhibit A – my Raw file, and exhibit B – the original posting of the image online complete with attribution).

    Yes we all want to get paid and we all want credit, but it’s kind of like saying home taping is killing music. It didn’t. Last I heard, music was still being made. And some people were even making money from doing it. If you copy someone else’s song and claim it’s your own, it’s unlikely you’ll get away with it for long if you’re out there making big bucks form it. Of course there are exceptions…. But being a creative individual is tough. Making money from being a creative individual is even tougher. Will this bill make the situation worse? I doubt it. Are there reasons to oppose it? Sure. Will it kill the industry? No.

    I’m not happy about the fact that images of mine get used without my knowledge or permission, and the fact that some of those uses I should be getting paid for, but to be honest, in terms of my current finances I’m far more concerned about how much people who do contact me are willing to pay…

  35. Peter says:

    The essential problem with this act is that it has been set up to facilitate parasitic rights scrapers, intent on profiteering without paying the original creators of the work. Look at what it actually allows:

    The use of an un-attributable work (an orphan),
    Including sub-licensing on a commercial basis “for payment”,
    Provided the licensor has done a “diligent search”.

    It is not in the best interests of the licensor to be diligent in searching in the right places. Nor are there sufficient anti abuse penalties in place to prevent would be licensors from deliberately creating orphans and then treating the diligent search as a box ticking exercise which never in reality will find the actual creator to re-imburse them. After all why would they? Out of a sense of altruism? No. They do this to profit themselves. The legislation gives the power to use an image after the individual looking to license out the image has done a diligent search. This is a massive conflict of interest since it is in this individual or company’s absolute best interests that the “diligent search” appear to be thorough while at the same time pulling up a blank.

    Not only are they adding an unwanted middle man, but they are in fact set up so as to keep as much as possible of the proceeds of sales as they can, since obviously it is not in there best interests to advertise around that they are holding on to someone else’s money. Furthermore, the original creator has had no opportunity to decline the terms of this unwanted middle man, if they were unfavourable or unfair. And once the work has been licensed in this way, it is out there, the damage is done, with no way to put things right.

    • duckrabbit says:

      HI Peter,

      thanks for your comment.

      ‘The essential problem with this act is that it has been set up to facilitate parasitic rights scrapers, intent on profiteering without paying the original creators of the work.’

      I don’t see any evidence of this. They’ll have to pay to liscense the work. Photos are so cheap now it will probably be more expensive to go through that process. It may even be that online photos are not allowed to be registered as orphans.

      ‘Nor are there sufficient anti abuse penalties in place to prevent would be licensors from deliberately creating orphans and then treating the diligent search as a box ticking exercise which never in reality will find the actual creator to re-imburse them. ‘

      There is no evidence that there would be any benefit to doing this. On any kind of scale it would obvious pretty quickly.

      ‘The legislation gives the power to use an image after the individual looking to license out the image has done a diligent search. This is a massive conflict of interest since it is in this individual or company’s absolute best interests that the “diligent search” appear to be thorough while at the same time pulling up a blank.’

      I agree. But they will still have to prove they have done the search.

      • Peter says:

        I think you have slightly misunderstood there. The people who set up the orphan works schemes and license the images won’t have to pay. They just get approval from the business secretary to set up a photo library.

        It is the people who want to license the images from the orphan works schemes who will have to pay. The danger is that orphan works schemes will be allowed to authorize large numbers of images in bulk using a blanket “diligent search”.

        As far as the lack of controls and penalties goes, penalties for transgressions are fundamental. If you don’t ban something, there will be someone who will go right ahead and do it. Look at the repeal of the Glass Steagal Act in America. This effectively allowed retail banks to run investment banking operations. The restrictions put in place after the great depression were no longer considered appropriate – move forward just 9 years and you have the largest financial crisis in the last 100 years.

        It would not surprise me if, in a few years time, we witness a public enquiry due to the large number of members of the general public (not just professional creatives) who have had their property exploited against their will with major consequences. It also would not surprise me if much of the publishing and creative industries go over seas to jurisdictions that support them better, or more likely simply fizzle out due to better supported foreign competition. And with the loss of them, we loose the other industries that are integrated with them as well. To a large multinational, an advertising or design agency in Germany or America is equally as much a potential supplier as one in London or Manchester.

        • duckrabbit says:

          Hi Peter,

          thanks for your response.

          ‘I think you have slightly misunderstood there. The people who set up the orphan works schemes and license the images won’t have to pay. They just get approval from the business secretary to set up a photo library.

          My understanding is that to register an image you will have to specify a usage and then pay the IPO for that usage at the ‘market rate’. All of that will take time and money. Possibly more time and therefore more money than simply going through a stock library or sourceing a CC image.

          ‘As far as the lack of controls and penalties goes, penalties for transgressions are fundamental.’

          I have mixed feeling about this. Its right to penalize people, yes, but to date it doesn’t work brilliantly as a deterrant. Look at the music industry.

          Your point about banking is a good one. Regulation is important.

          ‘It also would not surprise me if much of the publishing and creative industries go over seas to jurisdictions that support them better, or more likely simply fizzle out due to better supported foreign competition. And with the loss of them, we loose the other industries that are integrated with them as well. To a large multinational, an advertising or design agency in Germany or America is equally as much a potential supplier as one in London or Manchester.’

          We’ll see. But again I would point to the music industry. The labels have suffered but great musis is still being made in the UK.

          Thanks again.

          Thanks again for your comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.