Atrocious copyright Act - implications

[davidc]

Though I'd known it was lurking in the pipeline, a new act that can in effect strip away the inherent rights that you as a photographer have over your images has been passed.

Here's a commentary on it - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29 ... _landgrab/
And here's the official logging of the bill's progress - http://services.parliament.uk/bills/201 ... eform.html

In a nutshell, and leaving aside the alleged reasons behind why the coalition has pushed it through, essentially if your image is online then if someone wishes to use it then they only need to prove they conducted a search to ascertain the original owner and if they can't find it, it's permanently available to use. Absolute disgrace in my opinion, and an online petition has been set-up to try to repeal it.

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.g ... ions/49422

Although I always include full exif details including my name and copyright for my images, be wary that social networking sites can (and often do) just cut them out completely (which is why I only ever link on Facebook, not directly upload for example). Watermarking would go some way to helping but I feel that it ruins images. Lo-res images are no solution given that they can comfortably be used online anyway (and I'd imagine that the number of people looking for nice images for online use dwarfs those looking for print quality). I'd advise never stripping the exif out as a general rule of good practice.

There will be a fund setup so that someone using an image they claim they cannot attribute to a source will pay into but that will only persist for six years and even if you DO find a case your image has been used I imagine the legal costs for making a claim to the fund will likely outweigh the benefit of making a claim. But then your image is "lost" forever.

Even if this doesn't likely impact many of our members who don't publish their work online I am interested to see what others think.

[Mike Farley]

Regrettable though this new law is, I do not think that it actually changes anything in practice. The unscrupulous have always stolen images posted online and anyone with a reputation to safeguard will continue to be wary of using pictures in this way. Or am I being naive about the respectable fearing adverse publicity now this new law has been enacted?

For a long time, I have restricted both the pixel dimensions and file size of any images which I post online to limit the usefulness to anyone who is sad enough in actually wanting to appropriate one of my pictures. My standard Lightroom Export preset specifies maximum dimensions of 800 x 768 and a largest file size of 150KB. It won't stop thieves using them on websites, but it makes them worthless for use in printed material except as small thumbnails. I would recommend everyone do something similar.

Incidentally, websites such as flickr which seemingly prohibit downloading of images offer little protection in reality. The image has to be stored in temporary storage on the computer to be displayed, so it is simple enough for the dishonest to filch them. Similarly, it is straightforward to remove EXIF data and claim that the copyright statement was never present.

[davidc]

Hmmm the problem is it opens things up from just the unscrupulous to those who simply have fewer scruples OR to those who take your images and post them on their site without attribution, breaking the link.

Your point about Flickr isn't 100% true - though you do download a version of the file to your machine when viewing it, that version by default is 1025x620 (ish) at low resolution. You don't ever download the "full size" image unless you explicity request it AND the user has explicitly allowed it. The decision to allow the maximum viewable size is up to you and I cap mine at 1024 so it's again too small to print but, like your measures, fine enough to be stolen for use on websites. I've had this occur twice and in each case complained to the person and their web host - one was removed completely and the other was a Thai website that ignored me so I replaced the image they were pointing at with a message informing others of their theft.

Actually, I disagree with what you do Mike and would NOT recommend others do it (for "security" reasons at least). I'm not sure what purpose is served by removing the exif data (as you seem to do) as it removes the copyright details added by the camera and although capping the size at 150kb makes it faster to download, now everyone is using cable/fibre optic connections, that isn't really a huge consideration. Moreover, I think your capping of the file size often introduces bad artefacting in your images that impacts the quality - the B&W people shot from the terrace that you posted in image critique springs to mind - and I actually think you're doing yourself a disservice by posting these lower JPG quality images. Considering neither of us is putting the hi-res image online and storage space/bandwidth is, these days, not a practical problem, to my eyes it feels like you method is impacting how your images are being presented, particularly in areas of fine detail - it's very noticeable! I'd actually suggest you nudge the file size UP so your images come across better! This is a matter of personal preference though.

Anyway, this bill means that whereas before if we had noticed our images had been stolen and used on another website we did have legal recourse to claiming them back + compensation. Now, that avenue has been further eroded with the overall effect being content producers such as ourselves are disincentivised to share our work which, in my opinion, is the core problem with this bill. It's hard enough to make money out of photography as is and this is yet another step towards making it harder.

[Rose]

EXIF data is certainly useful for demonstrating copyright but it is not necessary. The lack of EXIF data does not make an image an orphan work. See http://www.farrer.co.uk/Global/Briefings/-04%20IP%20Commercial%20briefings/Orphan%20Works%20One%20Step%20Closer%20to%20Home.pdf, for some helpful explanation.

[Mike Farley]

Dave, I suspect that it is unlikely that the law will be repealed, certainly in the lifetime of this parliament, so it will be interesting to see whether it adds to the amount of copyright theft. If there are those who are discovered using large numbers of stolen images, it will be obvious that they have not made serious efforts to discover the copyright owners as the act requires.

flickr allows images to be viewed above the default size you mention. Does it do this by interpolation or are the larger sizes downloaded for display on the computer, do you know? Either way, users are only being protected from casual theft and not from those with serious intent.

If you look at the metadata in the images which I post on the forum, you will see that there is a copyright statement. It is the technical EXIF data which I remove as I believe that it is is the image which people should be looking at, not the equipment and settings used which add very little value in my opinion. I include the technical data here only as a favour to you since you have said that you find it helpful to your own photography to have this information. Unfortunately the 365project website where I also post my PAD images removes the copyright statement, for reasons I know not, although it does not strip out the EXIF data and actually makes a feature of showing what cameras have been used.

I deliberately restrict my file sizes to lower image quality as a discouragement of illicit use elsewhere. The quality is sufficient to allow appreciation of the picture, even if there are occasional artefacts. I can live with that and 150 KB seems to be the sweet spot for the image size I use.

A few years ago Amateur Photographer posted one of my images on its forum, a post which since seems to have been removed. From memory, it was in the news discussion section which only seems to go back to 2012, whereas this happened in 2008. The image was far larger than I would have wished and the file size came in at a whopping 2 MB. Incredibly, someone on the forum asked me to post an even larger version, a request which I ignored, although I did wonder about their motives.

[davidc]

True, but it certainly helps and I don't know of any material benefit why you would want to delete it

[Mike Farley]

In my travels to other clubs I am sometimes asked what camera I use and I normally try to deflect the question as any modern camera will take an image that has good technical quality, so for me that information is unimportant at best. At worst it acts as a distraction, which is why I remove the EXIF data in posted images. That's a benefit as far as I am concerned and I am far from alone in that view.

[Mike Farley]

There is a meeting with the government next month. It remains to be seen whther it will have any effect.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/ph ... yright-law

[davidc]

Interesting that the furore over this is such that the IPO have issued a response.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08 ... reform-act

The cynic in me thinks that a "hang on this is what we mean by this law" document does not mean that it must be taken into consideration if that law is ruled on though. Still, shows a lack of foresight on their part IMO that they have to issue such a document.

[Mike Farley]

Interesting that the furore over this is such that the IPO have issued a response.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08 ... reform-act

The cynic in me thinks that a "hang on this is what we mean by this law" document does not mean that it must be taken into consideration if that law is ruled on though. Still, shows a lack of foresight on their part IMO that they have to issue such a document.

Hmm, there does seem to be a lot of misinformation around at the moment, which is understandable given how recent the legislation is. I was certainly not aware that anyone wishing to use an orphan work could not do so automatically and still had to pay a usage fee, for example. Not that it makes it any better as it removes the option to decline use of an image and there is no control over the fee agreed with the registering authority or its cut.

There is also the concern that the registering authority will just turn out to be a rubber stamping operation, more interested in collecting usage fees than ensuring rights holders are protected. Events where even large organisations have acted without probity, banks colluding to fix LIBOR being just one recent example, make me think that companies being concerned about bad publicity is not in any way a deterrent, contrary to my earlier views. Nowhere in the IPO's statement is there anything which addresses how the licencing authority will be monitored, if at all.

Although the legislation has not yet been enacted, it would still be a sensible precaution for everyone to ensure that all posted images contain the relevant copyright details.

The recent statemnet from the RPS is also of interest. Hopefully discussions with with the government will lead to approriate safeguards being put in place.

http://www.rps.org/news/detail/society_ ... _statement