RMweb Gold 96701 Posted April 29, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 29, 2013 A new Act has received Royal Assent. There is more info here: - http://www.theregist...r_act_landgrab/ It could well alter the way we post images (if anybody posts any at all). I've written to my MP about it because I don't like the thought of my rights being taken in such a cavalier way. Try & keep it clean, please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 On reading the link Phil's posted there are a lot of areas of potential concern. I'll need to do a lot more reading and seek advice if necessary to pass on in our context but please rest assured this does not change our position with respect to copyright remaining with image posters and also the use of material from third parties. My concerns lie in ensuring I give the best advice with regard to anyone thinking they can mine stuff from here. It might be worth reading this topic - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65041-ebay-seller-selling-images-from-flickr/page-3&do=findComment&comment=1007249 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 As if any further proof was needed that finance and big business have captured government.... I'm not too bothered about anything I put on here, if anyone wants to use pictures of my toy trains, they're quite welcome. I do, however, hate the thought that someone else could make money from them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 ... please rest assured this does not change our position with respect to copyright remaining with image posters and also the use of material from third parties. I feel it would be prudent to have a notice to that effect on some RMweb entry pages, e.g. the forum front page. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 This horse bolted a long time ago. With very little effort anyone can copy any photo from the internet very easily with Apple products and with only a little more effort on MS based products. I certainly will not be losing any sleep over this and if anyone uses any of my photos it would be nice to be credited but if not so what? That said I would of course respect the rules regarding photos and images of any on-line forum or resources XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldgunner Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 I'm not bothered about the use of my pictures, hell I don't even charge. But recognition and a credit is not too much to ask for is it? Especially if its 'for profit'. Although I may consider a small fee if it were the case of a larger company requesting to re-use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Try & keep it clean, please.As illustrated in the last sentence of this somewhat one-sided piece of journalism? Some form of legislative clarification is long overdue in this area. It is a shame that those with financial clout will continue to bully those who have not - and in both directions on the subject. Laws that were designed for the non-digital age do not sit well in the global digital world we now live. The legislation always seems to be in catch up and quick legislation is always badly formed. I'd be honoured if someone would make use of my images, but I'm afraid they are not that good or interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 30, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 30, 2013 Am I missing something? This applies only to "orphan works", i.e. where the ownership isn't obvious and can't be easily established. If you put a clear copyright notice on your stuff, it remains yours and can't be taken from you. Even if you don't, the ownership of anything on RMweb is easily established if members use their real names when posting instead of anonymous nicknames. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Jonboy Posted April 30, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 30, 2013 The big issue is many hosting sites strip out Meta tag data as images are uploaded, making it much much easier for works to become orphaned to begin with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fender Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 I agree that this may result in content being withdrawn from the web, and may have been poorly thought through, but surely people who really care about this can have copyright logos embedded in the photos they upload. you then have to pay to receive the image without the logo on it. if a photo has COPYRIGHT JOE BLOGS written across the front of it then is registering the photo really necessary, and is the photo of any use to anyone who wishes to make money from it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stuartp Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 On the other hand, it allows museums and archives to publish photos which they previously couldn't because they were still in copyright but the holder was genuinely unknown. It isn't necessarily all bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymw Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Although not related to imaging, The following link is interesting/amusing http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/ (hope this link works). It didn't, so try http://www.codeproject.com/News.aspx?ntag=19837497448954915&_z=2684255 Best wishes, Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54Strat Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Apparently the plan is to have an orphaned photo able to have a license bought for it's use, the fee being held in a fund in case the real owner comes forward. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted April 30, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 30, 2013 I can see a large percentage of sites used by modellers for prototype information and historical research disappearing because of this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 I can see a large percentage of sites used by modellers for prototype information and historical research disappearing because of this I don't think so as most people are not that bothered coupled with the issue that most of these photos have been already copied by many and may well resurface as orphaned ones! To me this whole issue is just a a flash in a dark room for most people. I have a solution though, don't post your photos on the internet, but that would deprive some of the adulation they so desperately seek! XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Apparently the plan is to have an orphaned photo able to have a license bought for it's use, the fee being held in a fund in case the real owner comes forward. From whom would this 'license' be bought? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54Strat Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 From whom would this 'license' be bought? From http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/30/orphan-works-copyright According to the Act, if a publication is genuinely unable to find the rights holder and is able to demonstrate this to a government-appointed body, they may then be able to buy the license to use the image. The licence fee (at an equivalent rate to that of a known photographer) is then held in case the rights holder is then found or comes forward. A government appointed body, it seems. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 To me this whole issue is just a a flash in a dark room for most people. I have a solution though, don't post your photos on the internet, but that would deprive some of the adulation they so desperately seek! Nigel - just last week you were asking me for a pic to help with a thread - but now folk who post their stuff on the web are doing it to 'desperately seek adulation'! Cmon. Most folk that post images on sites like this are just doing it to try and help... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Oh, dear. Another reason not to move back to Blighty. Supposedly... Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Nigel - just last week you were asking me for a pic to help with a thread - but now folk who post their stuff on the web are doing it to 'desperately seek adulation'! Cmon. Most folk that post images on sites like this are just doing it to try and help... Martyn I agree with you in the main however I think we all at times want to show others what we have done and like to receive positive feedback and I have no problem with that not that I have ever done this However if some when then uses your photo for some other reason, I have no issue as long as they credit me (if they know it is my photo!). The issue of payment for photos to me is a bit non-issue as most photos sell for fairly low prices and it is only a professional high quality photo that will really attract a high price. Nobody is forced to post their photos on-line and if you do how do you effectively police all the images on the internet? I think there are far more pressing issues to worry about, however each to their own. Nigel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 The problem is that the article quoted is probably as badly written as the legislation itself (which I have not read). A sure sign that the UK is over-licensed is that people expect that there will be some central license like a Driver's License. No, so far as I can see Licenses will be issued by the Copyright Owner as a Licensor to a Licensee - User. No change there. These agreements are either Exclusive or Non-Exclusive. No change there either. The main point of contention is the fact that a User in the UK can find a photo say, on the Internet, say they have used due-diligence in locating the Copyright Owner to no avail and then claim ownership themselves. This is what will lead to to arguments with other countries of the World in representing their Copyright Owners and could lead to tit for tat stealing. It harks back to pre-Dickensian days when whole books of creative works were stolen and royalties kept by publishers rather than being passed on to authors. It is the registering of work in the UK that is changed, seemingly Prior to this in the UK one could simply mail a piece of ones work to oneself (keeping it sealed) to prove a date of completion. However I don't think it will be as bad as it seems because if you publish a photo on RMWeb and add some ownership info then you have told the World you own the piece (unless you stole it, of course at which point the real owner will start screaming blue murder). Hopefully commonsense will prevail. There does seem to be misconceptions about copyright on here. For example if you are exhibiting a layout at an exhibition and someone takes a photo of your layout the copyright to the image belongs to the photographer (or his employer) NOT the layout owner - it is the image that is covered by copyright. I do foresee the tightening of the NO PHOTOGRAPHS rule at Museums/Exhibitions/Churches/ etc., etc., because of increased awareness after this legislation is enacted. If I get a chance to peruse the legislation then I may change my opinion of it. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Can I just add this? Currently if you purchase a photograph/print anywhere (Ebay/shop/or person to person) by David Bailey or Joe Bloggs down the road, that does not imply that Copyright Ownership has passed to you. All it implies is that you may hang the "masterwork" on your wall and enjoy it. Think of it similarly to the purchase of a CD or Mp3 - your rights are strictly limited to listening to it at anytime and enjoying it (or not as the case may be). I always implore artists to NEVER, ever give up Copyright Ownership as the creator. If, however, you want to buy Copyright Ownership then it should say so on the bill of receipt. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 The main point of contention is the fact that a User in the UK can find a photo say, on the Internet, say they have used due-diligence in locating the Copyright Owner to no avail and then claim ownership themselves. No, I don't think ownership could be claimed, all that is being granted as far as I can tell at the moment is a license to use it. The devil will be in the detail of the as-yet unpublished Statutory Instruments, and it remains to be seen what the exact nature of the license will be. I am not aware of any limit being suggested on the number of potential licensees. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 A slightly less sensationalist view on it No, The UK Did Not Just Abolish Copyright, Despite What Photographers Seem To Think I suppose it all boils down to how much confidence you have in the independent body regulating the "due diligent search" for the author. The article also references another piece about exif data in images and how many social network sites appear to strip this data out from photos. https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2013/04/29/Picture-Rights On first check it appears that RMWeb also strips out exif data, although a note of caution I haven't done a scientific check. I downloaded half a dozen photos and the exif data was limited. Whether it was there in the first place I don't know - unless someone beats me to it I'll upload a photo with exif data in and then download it to see what remains. Anyway as the article says google may well be your friend. It prompted me to try the google image search with uploading a photo. I uploaded a photo with no exif data and the google search returned several links to copies of the image and what I believe to be the original source. So a diligent search may not be that difficult. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 No, I don't think ownership could be claimed, all that is being granted as far as I can tell at the moment is a license to use it. The devil will be in the detail of the as-yet unpublished Statutory Instruments, and it remains to be seen what the exact nature of the license will be. I am not aware of any limit being suggested on the number of potential licensees. There shouldn't be Miss P. You could have as many Non-exclusive Licensees as you wished. In any event (and I'd like to see the official wording) it is the "Due diligence" bit that seems to be controversial and understandably so - though it should not be! Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.