Orphan Works

[Marian J]

Does anyone know anything about this? Seems we are risking losing rights over images?

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/copyrightreform/
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=74848

[Pearl]

There have been rumblings about it coming in the US for a couple of years, which would have a knock on effect on all of us. Another nail in the photographers coffin if it does come about. :angry:

It is worth everyone signing it even if you don't presently intend to sell your photos.

Pearl

[Marian J]

I have signed it, not sure what good that does.

The full document is here
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/c-strategy-digitalage.pdf

I think it is the thin edge of the wedge. I haven't been adding the IPTC data to my Flickr images, probably too late with most of them now ;)

[Paul Smith]

But presumably you have contact details lodged with flickr which should mean nothing on there could ever be classed as orphaned?

I may be being a bit dim but I'm not sure I see the problem? It certainly isn't legalising anyone picking your work up and using it. There's appears to be quite an onerous process to have something declared orhaned.

Besides this government couldn't organise a drinking session in a brewery so chances of them getting anything through before may are slim. Most of the legislation will come from europe so a petition on the number 10 site will make absolutely no difference. You'd be better writing directly to Lammy and raising your concerns. Austin Mitchell is an MP who has repeatedly stood up for photogrphers rights as well so copy him in on it.

[Marian J]

You do have contact details lodged with Flickr. But if the image is removed from Flickr and posted elsewhere then the link with Flickr and you is lost. If you have filled out the IPTC info then that (as long as noone has stripped it), will link back to you.

If you haven't filled out the IPTC and it is taken and posted elsewhere then it is in essence then an orphan work. And anyone subsequently using the image won't have any obligation to you, even tho the original image is still on Flickr. I read somewhere on those threads of someone that had sold an image on exclusive grounds to someone else, that lost money because it was used elsewhere.

I have had images stolen and used on Flickr by other users, he just flipped the image horizontally and changed the EXIF data. I have also found one of my images (that I had sold rights to for a year for an Ad campaign in the US) that had been used as the background of an advertising campaign in the UK. There was nothing on the image linking it to me, and the company stated that they owned copyright. The photographer was appalled (he had been given the images by the company) and removed it from his Flickr stream and got the company to pull it too. These are only a few of the times when I have found them being used elsewhere, and it's hard to follow the paper trail.

All my images have been All Rights Reserved while I am on Flickr, I set my preferences to allow no downloads, and import images at 1024 longest side. Not really that much protection I know.

I see that the proposed legislation will legitimise those using my images if I haven't filled out the data. It involves me now going through about 1.500 images to do that, and I don't know how many of them are out there without the data on them, and relatively unattributable

That is my concern anyway

[Paul Smith]

I do see what you're saying but I don't think that is what they are trying to do here. I don't think lack of metadata will meet the requirments to declare work orphaned and they have said that should the author of orphaned work be found then they are to be compensated.

from p49

As set out in the Digital Britain Final Report,
the Government intends to legislate in order
to enable schemes for dealing with orphan
works to be set up on a regulated basis.
This will allow cultural institutions and others
including commercial businesses to unlock large
numbers of works that currently cannot be used.
Safeguards will include requirements to make a
diligent search for the true owners and making
provision for the reimbursement of rights holders
who are subsequently found and claim for the
use of their work.

They also point out in the very next paragraph that they actually are completely toothless to legislate in this arena at this point.

Subject to the Government obtaining the
enabling powers to license the use of orphan
works and extended collective schemes, the
detail of these provisions will be developed
through extensive consultation and enacted
in secondary legislation. Thus, decisions on
details such as the term of licences and what will
happen to licence fees arising from use of orphan
works will be taken as the details of specific
schemes are developed.

I'm normally first to have a moan about stupid new legislation but copyright is a complete mess at the minute and needs addressing. I'm actually suprised how much of the report I agree with in principle.

Don't envy you having to re upload that much stuff though :(

[Lee Iggulden]

Welshot Imaging is organising two very informative professional people to come and speak to the Academy about all these matters.

They deal with these sorts of questions on a daily basis and are giving Welshot a lot of advice in regards to what we do ourselves.

I was hoping it would be before Christmas but it is not looking likely but this will give you a chance to think about some questions.



Lee :)

[Marian J]

I realised as soon as I had posted that it wasn't the best place to put it sorry :(

[Paul Smith]

Well DEB is through the lords with some bonkers amendments attached by people who obviously have no understanding of how the internet works. Can Mandy work his magic and push it through the commons before the election?