Well at least they are trying SOMETHING in the UK

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I came across this article today:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

It's obvious from the article the author is a photographer and doesn't much like the plan. But I say, if photographers think enough of their images they should take a moment to register them with a site such as what is being planned. And meanwhile anyone that posts these images without at least attempting a search, should get penalized.

I personally think a plan like what is being proposed in England CAN be made to work. Just wonder what other people think.

[DavidVGoliath]

I came across this article today:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

It's obvious from the article the author is a photographer and doesn't much like the plan. But I say, if photographers think enough of their images they should take a moment to register them with a site such as what is being planned. And meanwhile anyone that posts these images without at least attempting a search, should get penalized.

I personally think a plan like what is being proposed in England CAN be made to work. Just wonder what other people think.

That article on The Register outlines an absolute worse case scenario if the Enterprise & Regulatory Reform bill comes into force without some of the particularly egregious holes in the bill being addressed.

A more balanced view of the bill can be viewed at this link

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

[Couch_Potato]

I have two main issues with this bill.

1) How can it be ok to sub-licence for profit a photo you don't own any rights to?

2) A lot of images on the internet are ones uploaded by people for social purposes. How is it ok to be allowed to use those images for profit and why should everybody have to register images they are not selling for profit just to ensure some multi-national doesn't use it.

Would any of us be ok with Getty sub-licencing our images for profit?

[DavidVGoliath]

1) How can it be ok to sub-licence for profit a photo you don't own any rights to?

Belive me, rightsholders in the UK are not okay with this and are set to fight the bill tooth and nail to prevent such things from happening. It seems that, by wording the bill as they did, the Intellectual Property Office is looking out for the interests of certain entities whom would grossly benefit from being able to do so.

2) A lot of images on the internet are ones uploaded by people for social purposes. How is it ok to be allowed to use those images for profit and why should everybody have to register images they are not selling for profit just to ensure some multi-national doesn't use it.

This is one of the key concerns that rightsholders have. Social Media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and so on - which allow the sharing of copyright material - largely remove the embedded EXIF and IPTC data that these files might contain, making it considerably more difficult to trace a rightsholder to obtain the permissions to use their work in a commercial manner.

Now, rightsholders whom know how to protect their works from such abuses might not be as affected by the "hoovering up" of creative works as Joe Average will be. If the flaws in the bill aren't addressed, then it will be a bad day for everyone.

Would any of us be ok with Getty sub-licencing our images for profit?

Emphatically "No", but I'd be more concerned about companies such as Google, Facebook and other large scale media aggregators - not to mention businesses whom would set up shop to explicitly take advantage of the flaws in the legislation.

Getty are actually one of the entities whom are challenging this legislation; they're working in concert with several other concerned parties - there are several options open to them so it remains to be seen just what will happen.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

What's wrong with a scenario where there is a free to use image registration system? That essentially fixes the problem.

If a person doesn't care enough about their work to register it, it can be re-purposed and even sold by others. If they register it and someone uses it, there could be codified penalties for doing so. And if someone doesn't care to spend the time to check out if an image is freely available they can just pay a content aggregation company that finds images and then does the clearance legwork.

This seems like it would work for everybody. The only issue I see is that if a photographer happens to get that one-in-a-million pic, the whole world could just infringe on it and pay the codified fee. But, what if that fee was $500. Sure the photographer selling an exclusive may get tens of thousands. But instead, he or she has thousands of outlets just using the image and paying the fee. Oh wait! Thousands times $500 equals... a win!

I'm a big fan of win-win-win solutions and this seems like this could work for everybody.

[DavidVGoliath]

What's wrong with a scenario where there is a free to use image registration system? That essentially fixes the problem.

The problem is that such an image registration system doesn't yet exist in the EU/UK, so the ERRB has kind of put the cart before the horse.

I too would welcome a recognised registry that one could upload their images to - one that is referenced in the legislation which will form one of the cornerstones of the "diligent search" that they cite as necessary.

There would also need to be codification of the penalties for using works without performing such a diligent search, as well as penalties for the use of registered works.

Lastly, the serious flaws in the bill which relate to the Berne Convention need to be addressed too.

Believe me: rightsholders want those win-win-win scenarios too. The act, as it stands, might not permit such a thing as it appears to favour those whom want to use a work rather than seeking a balance between the interests of creatives and the general market.

[Couch_Potato]

What's wrong with a scenario where there is a free to use image registration system? That essentially fixes the problem.

If a person doesn't care enough about their work to register it, it can be re-purposed and even sold by others. If they register it and someone uses it, there could be codified penalties for doing so. And if someone doesn't care to spend the time to check out if an image is freely available they can just pay a content aggregation company that finds images and then does the clearance legwork.

The problem with your scenario is it assumes people even know about this change in law and what it means. It's no different from Getty relying on ignorance of copyright law to hammer people who use their images in good faith.

The other issue is, because copyright was always automatic and you owned the property, people may have thousands of pictures in several different online places. Trying to locate them all and registering them is an unfair burden.

Who really benefits from this change in law? This will not benefit anybody in Getty's letter programme because they would never have any proof they performed a diligent search to locate the copyright holder because in the most cases they aren't aware the image isn't licensed properly or used a third party to build their website.

[lucia]

What's wrong with a scenario where there is a free to use image registration system? That essentially fixes the problem.

The problem is that such an image registration system doesn't yet exist in the EU/UK, so the ERRB has kind of put the cart before the horse.

I should think one could be set up quickly. I don't see this as "cart before the horse". The system didn't exist before the law because the system had no meaning until the statute was enacted. Now, presumably, someone can set up the  registration system.  There may be a time gap during which the law exists but no system exist, but that's not such a big deal. 

I too would welcome a recognised registry that one could upload their images to - one that is referenced in the legislation which will form one of the cornerstones of the "diligent search" that they cite as necessary.

There would also need to be codification of the penalties for using works without performing such a diligent search, as well as penalties for the use of registered works.

Lastly, the serious flaws in the bill which relate to the Berne Convention need to be addressed too.

Is there a flaw related to the Berne Convention? The US recognizes copyright exists from the moment created, but also requires registration for the purpose of assessing statutory damages and penalties.

Believe me: rightsholders want those win-win-win scenarios too. The act, as it stands, might not permit such a thing as it appears to favour those whom want to use a work rather than seeking a balance between the interests of creatives and the general market.

It seems to me the balance will vanish once the registration mechanism is set up. That shouldn't take very long.

[DavidVGoliath]

Is there a flaw related to the Berne Convention?

The Berne Convention states very clearly that you cannot allow copyright works to be used in a way which detracts from the copyright owner's ability to earn a living; as a signatory to Berne, the United Kingdom would be in breach of the convention if they enact domestic legislation which limits the rights of copyright owners to profit from the work that they create.

Article 5 of the Berne convention states that authors receive copyright protection without the requirement of any formality, such as having to register their work with an agency or collective society; Article 9 of Berne grants authors the exclusive right to authorise the copying of their work.

There can be no clearer example of limiting the rights of copyright holders to profit from the work that they create than legislation which permits the commercial use of orphan works, especially if you are required - even on a "voluntary" basis - to register with a UK based agency as part a mechanism to minimise or prevent such exploitation.

It seems to me the balance will vanish once the registration mechanism is set up. That shouldn't take very long.

I'm in favour of a UK or EU registrations body (especially if it broadly mirrors the US system) but not if registration is required or preferred to protect ones works against the potential of being exploited as "orphans" by less than scrupulous entities.

My rationale isn't based on my own business, but on the millions of people whom upload their own images to sites such as flickr, Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook etc. - casual users of image sharing sites whom probably have no idea about copyrights. Remember, the language of the ERRB applies to all works, not just those created in the UK.

Creative professionals might know to register their works to protect them, and will have to suck up the time/expense of doing so as a cost of doing business. Joe Average might not be cognizant of how his pictures, designs or so on could wind up being appropriated - and there's a good chance he won't be able to afford to register his work (factoring for the current economic climate)

The US recognizes copyright exists from the moment created, but also requires registration for the purpose of assessing statutory damages and penalties.

A registration is technically required only before you can file suit in federal court; the registration needs to be timely (within three months of publication of the work) to permit a claimant to pursue statutory damages of up to $30,000 per work infringed - or $150,000 in the case of wilful infringements... otherwise the claim can only be for actual damages (usually the "lost" license fee) and/or DMCA violations.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

It seems we ARE at least looking into this. See my post at:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/u-s-house-copyright-hearings/

I have to say that after reading this Politico article and what DavidVgoliath has to say, I have changed my position. It sounds like content creators were left out of the conversation and what is being presented here would shift the burden onto them and only benefit the tech industry.

There needs to be a way to make it easier for creatives to share their work and get paid for it when it is used commercially. But it doesn't look like that is the primary focus of the hearings here or in the UK.

However, I do think now is the perfect time for people to bring the practice of copyright trolling to the attention of their Representative and also Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House subcommittee. 

You can contact Bob at:
http://goodlatte.house.gov/contacts/new

Find your Representative at:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/