Proposed UK law changes would ban street photography and permit use of orphan works.

[Rolleiflexible]

Copyrightaction.com reports of two proposed
revisions to UK law, that will have a palpable
effect on all of us. The first is an expansive new
rule that will permit the use of "orphan works,"
i.e., photographs whose copyright ownership
cannot be discerned, contained in the "Digital
Economy Bill," expected to pass in the next
month or so. The second is a proposed rule to
ban "professional" photographers from publishing
photographs made in public, without the consent
of all identifiable people who appear in it, in the
name of protecting privacy interests.

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/uk...and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public

The orphan works provision of the proposed
Digital Economy Bill would appear to have
broad global consequences, as it appears to
enable UK publishers to make use of any
photograph they find online, the provenance
of which cannot be established.

 

[ajmiller]

What bothers me about this is the way it's been done. Type 'Digital Economy Bill' into Google and it's all about illegal file sharing, tougher rules on video games etc. Whilst I'm all in favour of creators of digital content been rightly rewarded for their work, as usual, the devil is in the detail. The two parts you mention here have been bolted on with little thought and no clarity of detail - vague laws are open to many interpretations.
As far as photography goes, perhaps another good reason not to go digital?

 

[df cardwell]

Thanks for posting this, Sanders. AS the lede says, "The end game is now in sight."

"another good reason not to go digital?"

Don't you mean, another reason to NEVER post an image online ?

 

[ajmiller]

Don't you mean, another reason to NEVER post an image online ?

Good point, and from my limited understanding watermarking isn't a great help. There was a Q&A session on The Guardian website the other day about becoming a photographer as a career choice and one of the panel spoke about some Silicon Valley companies developing software to assist photographers in finding their images online. I think your suggestion of not posting online at all may be easier.

 

[SuzanneR]

It's a double edged sword... most photographers need to market their work in order to get assignments, and I can tell you, if I were still a photo editor, ( I worked for a weekly newsmagazine) I'd be using websites to assess a photographer's work. If they didn't have a website, I'd have to wonder why? And if I can't see the work quickly... I'll move on to the next photographer on the list. Now, granted, nothing beats bringing a printed portfolio to an editor or art buyer, but that's not always practical, and there were times when i had to hire someone quickly in a particular area without knowing them. In this day and age, I'm sure I can be more confident about their work once I've seen their website. I wasn't always able to know just how good or bad the work really was back in the day.

This UK law does seem to do an end run around the US copyright law, and you'd think ASMP would be all over them. And really, they need to define "orphan work" a little more precisely, and banning street photography is a fool's errand if ever there was one. What a mess.

 

[Andy K]

I would suggest that any UK photographer opposed to this write to their local MP via Write To Them, as I have done. Question the Orphan Works clause of the Digital Economy Bill and demand a response from the Digital Minister, Stephen Timms MP.

 

[Q.G.]

I would suggest that any UK photographer opposed to this write to their local MP via Write To Them, as I have done. Question the Orphan Works clause of the Digital Economy Bill and demand a response from the Digital Minister, Stephen Timms MP.

And write to any MEP you can locate as well.
If national governments can get silly bills passed in national parliaments, there's always the EU to put up an extra hurdle to trip 'm up. (The EU is not always a bad thing. )

 

[Ian Grant]

You're right Andy, it is a case of writing to your MP, and I'd add MEP because it raises EU issues as well. As there's a General election due any moment in the UK relevant candidates as well, I've been getting Email canvassing already from 2 parties.

Ian

 

[AgX]

A german higher court has just made a decision which seemingly changes the situation of photographers to their benefit who want to commercialize photographs of buildings, of which the owner itself already makes commercial use.

So not all is that bad everywhere at the moment...

 

[Andy K]

You're right Andy, it is a case of writing to your MP, and I'd add MEP because it raises EU issues as well. As there's a General election due any moment in the UK relevant candidates as well, I've been getting Email canvassing already from 2 parties.

Ian

I have now also written to all my EU representatives.

 

[df cardwell]

Suzanne: "... If they didn't have a website, I'd have to wonder why?..."

One reason is to assure clients their images will never be stolen,
one reason is to assure parents their children's images will never be stolen,
one reason is to assure the photographer (me) that his work will never be orphaned then legally harvested.

Funny, today, how portrait clients I see like that I don't have a website.

Of course, in this day and age, you'd probably be dealing with interns anyhow. Oh, well.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

So if images posted online have copyright stamps over them like I know some people use, are these images still fair game? Granted, it does not take too much effort to photoshop them out, but surely there is some way to stop unauthorized use?

 

[tim rudman]

The RPS have a statement here
http://www.rps.org/resources/downlo...atement_by_The_Royal_Photographic_Society.pdfhttp://www.rps.org/resources/downloads/Microsoft_Word_-_Copyright_-_Statement_by_The_Royal_Photographic_Society.pdf

they had a meeting with House of Lords today

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Tim, thanks for the reference.

It surprises me that more people haven't
spoken up in this thread. While the bill is
in the UK Parliament, its effects are global.
It provides cover for the appropriation of
photographic works worldwide by UK publishers
-- and one ought not forget where the world's
largest publisher, Rupert Murdoch (who supports
this bill), is based. This law will affect us all.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Onus should be on the user of a so called "Orphan" image to register that they are using it, and pay a fee. That way if someone finds their Copyright image has been used they can make a claim.

The proposals must contravene UK, EU and International Copyright Laws.

Ian

 

[perkeleellinen]

The two parts you mention here have been bolted on with little thought and no clarity of detail

To me this is interesting (and worrying, of course) and I wonder who was lobbying for the inclusion of these points and to what end.

 

[Andy K]

To me this is interesting (and worrying, of course) and I wonder who was lobbying for the inclusion of these points and to what end.

Rupert Murdoch.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I can understand how orphan works could benefit frugal media outlets that jealously guarded their own copyrights.

But a ban on reproducing photos of identifiable people in public places without consent seems to work against the interests of media outlets.

 

[perkeleellinen]

A closer reading of the article linked by the OP shows that the two issues 'orphaning' and photos in public places are not part of the same Bill:

Just to be entirely clear, the above article deals with two separate issues emanating from two different government departments.

 

[ajmiller]

Steve, the two are separate issues. The Digital Economy Bill (Business Secretary Peter Mandelsons department) is going through Parliament at the moment and includes concerns about orphan works. The part about photographing people in the street is part of another government department's (ICO Personal Information Online consultation) attempt to apply data protection law in public places.

Its explained better on the copyright action website that Sanders linked to in the original post.

 

[SuzanneR]

Suzanne: "... If they didn't have a website, I'd have to wonder why?..."

One reason is to assure clients their images will never be stolen,
one reason is to assure parents their children's images will never be stolen,
one reason is to assure the photographer (me) that his work will never be orphaned then legally harvested.

Funny, today, how portrait clients I see like that I don't have a website.

Of course, in this day and age, you'd probably be dealing with interns anyhow. Oh, well.

These are good points, and, in fact... I've put very few of my private commissioned portraits on my site. Still, I think to find and book editorial or commercial assignments is going to be tough without an online presence. I guess it comes down to risk/benefit.

No matter what... the definition of an "orphan" work needs to be more clearly defined, and publishers, advertisers, media still need to pay for their use, perhaps through a fund managed through copyright offices, of a work truly is "orphaned" and an author cannot be found. I hate the idea "well, we made a call and couldn't find the author, declared the work an orphan and just used it for our purposes" for free.

Screws writers, artists, photographers, etc. ugh.

 

[2F/2F]

"...in the name of protecting privacy interests. "

Here in the U.S.A., the courts have determined over and over again that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a place that is visible from public property, and that if one does not want to be seen or photographed, one should not be in a location in which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (such as anywhere that is visible from public property with a lens that approximates normal human vision). Is the legal situation different in England?

Commercial photography on the street here does require shooting permits, however (from the branch of government that "owns" the public property on which you are shooting). That makes sense...but "art" or "journalism" photography does not require a permit (or releases, for that matter). However, it is just the shoot itself for which one needs a permit. Once you have got away with an illegal commercial shoot, what you do with the pix cannot be punished by the law. It is not a law that has anything to do with publishing. It is simply a law that has to do with regulating traffic in public areas (and making a little income while they are at it).

 

[Rolleiflexible]

"...in the name of protecting privacy interests. "

Here in the U.S.A., the courts have determined over and over again that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a place that is visible from public property. Is the legal situation different in England?

We shall soon see.

It is ironic that this proposal is put forward to
protect Britons' privacy interests, when the UK
government subjects its residents to a high level
of video surveillance in public places. One guesses
that protecting one's "privacy" in Britain turns on
whether it is Her Majesty's government that is
invading it.

 

[ajmiller]

"...in the name of protecting privacy interests. "

Here in the U.S.A., the courts have determined over and over again that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a place that is visible from public property, and that if one does not want to be seen or photographed, one should not be in a location in which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (such as anywhere that is visible from public property with a lens that approximates normal human vision). Is the legal situation different in England?

No, it isn't all that different, but despite statements by chiefs of police and government about the right to photograph on public land the officers on the street and security guards still take it on themselves to 'interpret' the law as they see fit and hassle photographers. Its the duplicitous nature of this that is concerning.

 

[Steve Smith]

Here in the U.S.A., the courts have determined over and over again that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a place that is visible from public property, and that if one does not want to be seen or photographed, one should not be in a location in which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (such as anywhere that is visible from public property with a lens that approximates normal human vision). Is the legal situation different in England?

No. It's exactly the same. The law uses the wording 'reasonable expectation of privacy' as you have stated it above.


Steve.