Copyright - Do You Bother.............

[The Vulcan]

Take a look at this link

Image theft

[The Vulcan]

Just noticed the bit about not taking snaps at "sensitive" public venues - UNLESS IT'S ON FILM!

I knew it wouldn't die!

[SeanMoran]

Sad story - sad finish to a once great society. Just cut your online jpegs down to 800x600 and keep the originals offline.

[Tywais]

April 1 is still over a month away, seems they jumped the gate. But then, maybe it's satire - British humor sometimes eludes me.

[aeon]

what about an orphan photo which contains copyrighted subject?

[The Vulcan]

what about an orphan photo which contains copyrighted subject?

As in brands names?

That'd be the problem of the user - orphan shot so presumably no recourse against an "unknown" photographer

[aeon]

what about an orphan photo which contains copyrighted subject?

As in brands names?

That'd be the problem of the user - orphan shot so presumably no recourse against an "unknown" photographer

It will turn out to be a huge revenue for that agency without too much expenses, I am sure will be "very very" smooth to access info about the usage and own remuneration if the author will find out some "improper" (I would add) usage of his own work. I think the internet community should do something to avoid this law to get in place. They can actually get info of the publisher on internet by ip address, but of course they wrote "will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search" this makes the big difference in earning. In the past negligence was punishable...

Edited February 18, 2010 by aeon

[The Vulcan]

I suspect there will be an enormous rise in popularity for the likes of Google Alert, Tineye, Google Analytics etc

[astral]

Why not ban photography altogether??????????????

How can I tell if someone is an orphan.

[aeon]

Why not ban photography altogether??????????????

How can I tell if someone is an orphan.

that is the trick, you can assume the photo is an orphan if through a "suitable negligent search" you can't find the name of the author, so why people should find the author name if they can get the photo with negligence and at a nominal fee...

[YanTree]

Unless you are the New York Times this is already how it works anyway except the part about paying the government a fee.

The two industries I work in online both have rampant photo stealing. Even if there is a watermark or something on it people just crop that out. Very difficult to prove that sort of thing. Again this is for small to medium sized websites and blogs - not huge corporations. They would be opening themselves up to too much liability doing that.

[The Vulcan]

Unless you are the New York Times this is already how it works anyway except the part about paying the government a fee.

The two industries I work in online both have rampant photo stealing. Even if there is a watermark or something on it people just crop that out. Very difficult to prove that sort of thing. Again this is for small to medium sized websites and blogs - not huge corporations. They would be opening themselves up to too much liability doing that.

That's disturbing to hear.

Assuming full IPTC, keywording and metadata is intact would this not identify theft and expose their actions?

[aeon]

Unless you are the New York Times this is already how it works anyway except the part about paying the government a fee.

The two industries I work in online both have rampant photo stealing. Even if there is a watermark or something on it people just crop that out. Very difficult to prove that sort of thing. Again this is for small to medium sized websites and blogs - not huge corporations. They would be opening themselves up to too much liability doing that.

I know is something that happen, but that make the user a thieve and the author has rights to get compensation in the more optimistic case, if not damage. That law instead will make the user of the stolen photo, not at fault and he has the rights to use that photos for whatever he likes without permission from the author, and "if" the author discover this he can claim a small percentage of the fee to the government agency.

Let say someone does a negligent search and found a photo of my sister in a sexy dress (luckily I don't have one) and decide to use her face to promote an erotic website, I can claim only few dollars from the agency maybe less, and I can get sued by my sister for her own image damage. And both of us can't prohibit to use that image on the website. I hope there will be limitation of usage of recognizable people and properties.

[YanTree]

Unless you are the New York Times this is already how it works anyway except the part about paying the government a fee.

The two industries I work in online both have rampant photo stealing. Even if there is a watermark or something on it people just crop that out. Very difficult to prove that sort of thing. Again this is for small to medium sized websites and blogs - not huge corporations. They would be opening themselves up to too much liability doing that.

That's disturbing to hear.

Assuming full IPTC, keywording and metadata is intact would this not identify theft and expose their actions?

Right click, save image as. Rename image. Upload image to imageshack.com or directly to your server. That it is how it is done. I'm pretty sure that removes the 'keywording and metadata' but I don't know for sure.

In the end it is just one small website stealing from another small website. Nobody is going to sue over that - they can just complain to that site owner and most of the time they'll probably just remove the image. Case closed.

[YanTree]

Unless you are the New York Times this is already how it works anyway except the part about paying the government a fee.

The two industries I work in online both have rampant photo stealing. Even if there is a watermark or something on it people just crop that out. Very difficult to prove that sort of thing. Again this is for small to medium sized websites and blogs - not huge corporations. They would be opening themselves up to too much liability doing that.

I know is something that happen, but that make the user a thieve and the author has rights to get compensation in the more optimistic case, if not damage. That law instead will make the user of the stolen photo, not at fault and he has the rights to use that photos for whatever he likes without permission from the author, and "if" the author discover this he can claim a small percentage of the fee to the government agency.

Let say someone does a negligent search and found a photo of my sister in a sexy dress (luckily I don't have one) and decide to use her face to promote an erotic website, I can claim only few dollars from the agency maybe less, and I can get sued by my sister for her own image damage. And both of us can't prohibit to use that image on the website. I hope there will be limitation of usage of recognizable people and properties.

Yes they technically have all these rights and they technically should owe all this money but it is never enforced and it wont be. Main reason being that most of the time the people wont ever see it. Even if somebody did what you just said the odds of you ever seeing that image are very low.

And that isn't what I meant anyway. I was talking about using images along with news stories for instance, where the author wasn't actually there but want's to make it appear he was - so he steals an image from somebody who was and ads it to his news story. Or pictures of celebrities etc.

You'd have to be some kind of stupid to use a stolen image in an advertisement - you are essentially advertising the fact that you are a thief - while there are lots of image thief's around I'm pretty sure most of them realize how dumb that would be. They just use the stolen images as content on their websites.

[The Vulcan]

A possible answer

Here

[neverdie]

Very interesting read, thankyou the vulcan.