Proposed UK copyright changes spark worldwide protests

a FREE world

Let's just give everything away for free... then the torrent generation will somehow how to pay bills with 'free'.... sad times...

Leave our work alone.

All they need to do in most cases is do Reverse Image Search on Google to find the author of the image, also where images is unlawfully used.

It's like saying there are cars parked on the streets, and if the owners are not with the cars, anyone can steal it and use it, right!?

This is madness

I'm a photographer from the UK and I disagree with this wholeheartedly.
If an image is copyrighted and you cant find the owner then YOU DON'T USE IT!!!
foreign or not.
Vince Cable you are a PLEB!!!

I'm British

I'm a British/U.K citizen and I think this is terrible if my government goes ahead with this. We have no right to use other peoples photos without their knowledge or permission... even to consider that is shocking!
I hope my government sees sense.

Tattoo

Ok, shall have my name across any image I hand out in large letters several times.
The audience cannot recognize the picture behind any more? Tattoo, too bad!

In case

In case England sinks, don't expect us to send a boat to her rescue. We'll just take pictures of her drowning.

Why are they allowing this?

It sounds like state sanctioned looting. Who benefits?

who gains?

The Government seem intent in pandering to to likes of Google who will be the big winners in plundering UK copyright.

Just look at Google's attitude to book copyright. They scanned and posted three of my books without asking me even though my name and addrss was on the ISBN page as photographer, author and publisher. It took 12 emails and several weeks to get them removed. This stupid government idea will hand US based tax-dodging compamies our IP on a plate.

No need to be so crude

I fully agree this bill needs to be stopped. The Orphan works situation is being dealt with in a crude manner. It is not necessary to be able to use copyrighted works if the owner cannot be found. In most cases a diligent search will find an owner and if not then do not use. Copyrighted images are not a cure for cancer that will benefit mankind however they are the livelihood of the creator and their rights should be protected. This proposed bill helps big business but not the smaller businesses that the economy relies on.

Crazy

Why the government is intent on allowing publishers and internet companies use our copyrighted material without our permission is beyond me. If they are not sure who the author of the work is, they should not use it - full stop. Hopefully this letter from the US will cause people to sit up and take notice.

A Legally Sanctioned Rights Grab

This is just another example of poor legislation with good intentions to "spur innovation". The problem is that innovation is coming at the cost of eviscerating many viable photography businesses...no how does the UK win in the end? The bottom line is that the media and publishing companies who would benefit from this legislation by not having to pay one dime for the use have the ear of ministers in the UK and members of Congress in the US. This would impact my business directly as I work with many UK clients who license my images. The only thing photographers can do is join together and support their respective trade organizations, who in turn will band together to fight these types of blatant rights grabs worldwide.

Andrew Prokos
Photographer
http://andrewprokos.com

robbing peter to pay off paul???

Is the governments thinking here that this copyright change will help support business by allowing free usage???
Why take from one sector to support others?
If anything it will further reduce the quality of imaging used in marketing and actually cause more harm to the creative sector.
Ill conceived, poorly thought out bill.

Unbelieveable!

I've had to read this several times to believe it. Another of Vince Cable's ludicrous schemes. He talks a good talk but it's all b@llocks!

unworkable, unbusinesslike, unreal

Everyone's photographs are their copyright and their "intellectual property" according to our own laws. You cannot then pass seperate laws that invalidate your other current legislation without repealing all the already existant Acts of Parliament that govern copyright, and as Cable and Co. can I hope understand they are proposing to undermine and invalidate current legislation. If they (as we) realize this, then surely the profession of photographer in the UK will cease to exist as money will not then be earned by its practise.

I know my photographs are my copyright because I did the work, I made them.

Is Mr Cable also now prepared to suggest that all MPs should work for nothing like we shall have to? And is he also prepared to work for nothing AND pay his own expenses as well?

No Free Cars

"It's like saying there are cars parked on the streets, and if the owners are not with the cars, anyone can steal it and use it, right!?"

Erm, not quite Yunghi Kim. Vehicles have wee things called NUMBER PLATES, which can be used to identify ownership. If you're going to be outraged, at least use a more sensible comparison. ;)

Vote him out!

The main things politicians care about is staying in office, so vote him out! Send letters to his office and let all the politicians be put on notice. Hopefully the elections are still legitimate.

Disgrace

This is a disgrace. Not only does it undermine the value of photography as a whole but it encourages picture editors/researchers etc who might normally contract a UK photographer for an image to scan the web for foreign, 'orphan' works and pay nothing. It just keeps getting worse for people trying to make a living in this industry.

madness

you can see where this is going ,is it eny wonder CNN are getting shot of there photojournalists.thay will all be at it steeling face book shots and blurred mobile phone shots to cover the stores .

I can't believe it

Unbelievable and unfair! Not to talk about professional dignity and rights.

Copyright is a Right

The five new clauses that are proposed to pass in April 2013 will devastate an already challenged creative industry but most especially for photography. There are others pushing for this change as they want our content but simply don't want to pay for it, they see it as a cost that they can turn around and exploit, we see it as our livelihood.
But the worst proposed clause is for Extended Collective Licensing which will mean for each photographer - giving up our right to say yes or no to usage, negotiate relative fees, and bypass rights within the works, on a monumental scale. It's a concept they would like to also role out to orphan works, anonymous/ pseudonymous and unpublished works. It may have worked in the Nordic countries but that's a tiny market, ours is huge by comparison. Far too many of us will be affected and how are we meant to find the time to check each scheme and opt-out?
It's as if they are all ignoring the fact that 'copyright is a right' not something to manipulate because there is a so called 'pot of gold at the end of the rainbow', that is because the pot is ours by right. These clauses are being forced upon us without our say-so so that others can legally earn an income from our content. We need everyone to lobby MPs before it's too late.

Orphan Works

This is the greatest confiscation of private property since the Russian Revolution.

I have spent 20 years building up an aerial photography business. Aerial photographs are expensive because they are taken from an aeroplane or helicopter for which I pay up to 1800 pounds per hour. I have been spending up to 25,000 pounds per year building up my archive and business and now have 2 million visitors a year. Instead of rejoicing in this success and enjoying the 20%vat,20%income Tax and 8% national insurance I pay, the government is effectively confiscating my life's work. Who is going to buy one of my photographs if they can simply pay a pound to a government agent and use it anyway.
They say it will require a "diligent search" but those are easy to fix if you set out not to find what you are searching for. They say we will be paid for these orphan uses but first we have to find them and then we will have to claim. My only experiences of a scheme like that is the one which "pays" me for my books being available in public libraries. The year before last I got £2,68 for a year. How can I feed a family of 4 on £2,68 per year.
The whole scheme is completely illegal under all international law. The Universal declaration of Human rights states"
Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Great way to finally kill off the photography industry in the UK. this bill.

So, what incentive does a person have to book a struggling photographer in the UK if they can just nick an image from some struggling artist abroad? WE NEED A PRS FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS NOW!

Leave "Orphan Photos " Alone

Having been disgusted by the ideas behind this whole proposed changes to the law in UK.
I wish to ask , "Why is it that people should be allowed to use Photographs that do not bear identification of owner of Copyright?"

If photographers wish to obtain monies from use of their works they will no doubt clearly mark them, so possible users can contact them and PAY for usage.

If they wish to keep photographs as Non Commercial then they do not put identity marks on them , and nobody should be allowed to use them.

Very Very Simple solution to the whole 'Orphan Works" situation.

No need for any changes in laws , except maybe an amendment to emphasis the fact that Nobody has right to use anybody else's photos, or painting etc without permission of owner of Copyright.
No forced usage against wishes of said owner should be permitted . If Owner does not want his work used that should be the end of the matter.
With maybe a million Pound mandatory penalty for breaches , going to the owner.

When will sense return to this country!

These proposed UK copyright changes are very much the stream of this government!
The identity of this country and it's people are being dragged through the muck!
If this is passed, we will lose the image of fair play to all people, and gain the face of thieves! Vince Cable is the captain again, to run another ship on to the rocks!
History will remember these dark days!

When will sense return to this country!

These proposed UK copyright changes are very much the stream of this government!
The identity of this country and it's people are being dragged through the muck!
If this is passed, we will lose the image of fair play to all people, and gain the face of thieves! Vince Cable is the captain again, to run another ship on to the rocks!
History will remember these dark days!

It's legal to steal.....it seems

Thes prisons are full, so what do we do? We legalize some previously criminal offenses. In this case....we don't bother finding the rights owners, and therefore we can just take what does not belong to us?
What kind of people come up with this kind of solutions? Only people who are not affected by making these kind of suggestions and people in the advertising business lobbying in order to reduce their own costs and increase their profits.
I can't legally steal.......unless I make it legal by law!!!!!

Embedded integrity

The integrity of the image lays with the creator.

Orphaned works are not merely illustrations. They than can and have been politically and intellectually dangerous.

Its not just about the money. The creator IS part of the image and cannot be ignored.

Alistair Fuller
www.alistairfuller.com

Embedded integrity

The integrity of the image lays with the creator.

Orphaned works are not merely illustrations. They than can and have been politically and intellectually dangerous. see PA's mistake in 2010. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2010/oct/06/press-association-auschwitz-cambridge-cardiff)

Its not just about the money. The creator IS part of the image and cannot be ignored.

With more than 250 million images per day just on flicker in 2010 (see Erik-Kessels at the Foam Gallery in Amsterdam, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2061763/Artist-Erik-Kessels-places-1m-Flickr-images-single-room-Foam-gallery-Amsterdam.html (O.K the Daily Mail may not the ideal source but you get the idea!)) The law should and must regulate the use of imagery whereby if it is not attributed it cannot be used.

Its not Free enterprise for free, its simply plain stupid.

Alistair Fuller
www.alistairfuller.com

Owning who?

Also we were told in the UK that the last national census is to be the last due to 'cost constraints'. That leaves future generations without any means of researching ancestry. Pair that with the continued assault on what is not merely photographers and creatives rights to ownership of their own images/works, but the right of every individuals right of ownership of their own visual imagery. The visual recording and the statistics of our age are at stake. A move for complete and total state/corporate ownership of representations of our society. Goes beyond mere profit