| Author |
Message |
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 3504
Location: Evolving
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:27 am
|  |
I have copied this from a couple of posts on another site - I'm sure the authorz won't mind:
The UK government are planning changes to the Copyright laws. This will lead to a situation where anyone can use images with IPTC data missing, even for commercial purposes, and only have to pay a small amount to a collecting society if caught. It is called Orphan Works. There are other adverse changes too. Please sign the petition below to register your displeasure.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/copyrightreform/
"We call on the Government to abandon plans, announced on 29 October 2009, to allow free and unhindered reproduction of photographs without payment or credit on non-commercial websites.
This is completely at odds with the Government's stance on file sharing of other forms of intellectual property (films and music) and raises the prospect of crippling thousands of small businesses while protecting large corporate interests.
The proposal uses phrases like "It must be seen to benefit all parties, not some at the expense of others" and yet the Government's proposal does exactly that. It takes the work of photographers who have invested time and money in creating work, and gives it to people who have no relationship with that work, for free.
Photographic businesses are already under severe strain and the proliferation of digital cameras gives the impression that creating professional quality imagery is easy. This will further devalue the work of professional photographers and destroy the photographic industry."
***
Only British citizens or residents are allowed to sign the electronic petition, but I see no reason why anybody should not drop a note to the concerned minister (or print a copy of the petition, sign it and send it in):
David Lammy MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
It's all our interests to protest.
I'm not sure of all the details but if they can take our work and reproduce it without providing proper credits then it might become public domain if any "orphan works" law eventually gets passed in the US. |
|
bobmawby
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
Posts: 1676
Location: Not so young anymore.
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:50 am
| |
Thanks for highlighting this Paul. I have just signed. |
|
frozenpeas
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 1277
Location: C:/DOS, C:/DOS/RUN, RUN/DOS/RUN
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:09 am
| |
Signed, thanks for letting us know. |
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 7563
Location: South Florida
|
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 3504
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:05 pm
| |
That's about the US "orphan works" bill, which I believe was abandoned last year. The new move is from the Government in Britain. |
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 7563
Location: South Florida
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:18 pm
| |
| PaulCowan wrote: | | That's about the US "orphan works" bill, which I believe was abandoned last year. The new move is from the Government in Britain. |
I don't think so. Besides, I read it in the august or september 2009 edition of DPP.
Anyway, I was just trying to support your case. |
|
pharm
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 8997
Location: Never quite sure
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:46 pm
| |
Hey Rudy!!! Remember Freckles, the rescued dog? He's now 74 lbs and has a home in Connecticut (or Maine, I can't remember). |
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 7563
Location: South Florida
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:18 pm
| |
| pharm wrote: | | Hey Rudy!!! Remember Freckles, the rescued dog? He's now 74 lbs and has a home in Connecticut (or Maine, I can't remember). |
Your mind works in mysterious ways Perry to post that in this thread. LOL ( I think it's funny)
74Lbs and a home all the way on the east coast! That is fantastic. That dog deserves it.
We are taking care of another street cat nowadays. Normally I don't like to feed street cats for a lot of reasons, but this one has no nails and is blind in one eye. Can't take her in though, with 3 dogs and 3 cats already that would mean a very local world war 3 |
|
jppistu
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 738
Location: Puget Sound region
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:18 pm
| |
I think a lot of people don't understand the Orphan Works problem, just like a lot of people don't understand the public domain, and digital rights management, and a host of other intellectual product concepts and issues. (I intentionally do not refer to intellectual products as intellectual "property" because it muddies rather than clarifies related issues and discussions.) As someone who has made his living on intellectual products (well, once I left the mindless stuff I was doing in the military), yet also as someone who sees intellectual product monopolies as counterproductive to the advancement of society and its many facets, I think some legal action needs to be taken to free up intellectual products that have been abandoned by their creators, and perhaps other products that have become orphaned through mismanagement of ownership records over time.
The challenge, and it is anything but trivial, is ensuring that non-orphaned works are not unreasonably treated as orphaned. To be effective, this must put a significant burden on the user, not the creator. One such burden might be a mandatory delay (lasting decades, not years) before mismanagement of ownership records results in orphan treatment becoming effective. However, by not addressing orphaned works, some intellectual products could remain unusable permanently.
(Permanence of rights is another point that confuses people, and it is probably a point of conflict between international treaties and US law, the latter of which is based on the US Constitution which specifically makes copyrights non-permanent.) |
|
Photoshow
Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 5447
Location: Somewhere between where I'm going and where I've been
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:06 am
| |
Who says there is an Orphaned Works Problem? All those who lack the talent, maens or ambition to create their own works. Lazy SOBs who want to exploit the hard work of others for their own gain at no cost to themselves? What supream doctrine grants the general public an inhierent right to the works of other private citizens.
If I create an image that I did not intend for the world to be able to use then it should remain my property at least until the end of existing copyright law. Just because someone else wants to claim it is orphaned does not make it so. By your logic my choice to disallow public use of an image could be overridden and I am sorry but that is wrong.
My intellectual product or property however you want to refer to it is still MINE and should only pass into the public domain if I or the heir I designate ownership of it to choose to allow it to pass. The general public has no inherent right to my creation unless I grant it to them anything shot of proper grant of rights is theft!
The general public can have an inherent right to use my creations for free when they start subsidizing the creation of it by paying my taxes for me. Until that time they can go create their own images, legally license images or go piss up a rope!The choice is all theirs. |
|
jppistu
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 738
Location: Puget Sound region
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:43 am
| |
| Photoshow wrote: | | Who says there is an Orphaned Works Problem? All those who lack the talent, maens or ambition to create their own works. |
Like I said, many people don't understand the issue, or the public domain. Do you even understand that Orphaned Works is a much broader topic than photography? And as for the public domain, do you really think you create your own images completely from scratch -- or do you borrow from the public domain every time? Think about that before you answer.
| Photoshow wrote: | | What supream doctrine grants the general public an inhierent right to the works of other private citizens. |
You live in the US, right? It's called the US Constitution. It provides the foundation of copyright law (and every other law), and it specifically limits it. (And it wouldn't have been allowed at all if Jefferson had not given in his position, which he only did because of that limit. I'm sure he's rolling over in his grave with the life+70 "limit" and DRM-de-facto-unlimited nonsense we have now.)
I am very familiar with the "I created it, I own it" stance. Heck, I shared it about my own creations until I learned more. That position is not defensible logically, legally, or morally. Trust me, I've had this conversation countless times, and it always comes back to circular logic on the part of those who claim "I created it, I own it." It's not worth my time to go through it again unless you at least demonstrate a solid understanding of the (relatively short) history of copyrights. |
|
rixie
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2245
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
|
| |
|
Log in
