Photography industry shows mass opposition to government copyright changes [UPDATE]

Photo Industry Stands Together

The proposed bill put forward by the Government could seriously affect the photography industry especially if they ignore the EU Orphan Works Directive & continue with the proposed Extended Collective Licensing part of the bill. So it's great to see photography organisations, such as BAPLA and it's members, the Royal Photographic Society & the AOP come together to protest the bill.
As for the Copyright Hub, it's an industry concept devised by Sir Richard Hooper to increase content interoperability across all sectors. Although good in principle, it cannot conflict with the current photography industry & the ability of photographers earn an income, or be allowed to turn into one giant collecting society, as some photographers fear. There has to be a genuine business case for this to convince the photography community & in turn not cost photographers any more money, bottom line!

Government response to BJP article

As one of the government team working on the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, I would like to put forward our official response to this article. Industry views are very important to us - we understand that this affects people personally and for this reason it is vital that the community properly understands what changes are proposed. There are quite a few misunderstandings and inaccuracies in the article above; please read on for a clarification of the details.

The Government’s proposals on Orphan Works, Extended Collective Licensing, and Codes of Conduct for Collecting Societies are a response to an independent Review of Intellectual Property and Growth conducted by Professor Ian Hargreaves, and a consultation we ran between December 2011 and March 2012, to which over 400 organisations responded to tell us what they thought. Following the consultation, we set up stakeholder working groups, which are looking at and advising us on detailed issues of how the schemes could work in practice. Photographers, artists and their representatives like Paul Ellis, BAPLA, FOCAL, and the Association of Illustrators are actively involved in these working groups.

In developing the proposals we have been careful to ensure they are consistent with relevant international law, and with proposals which is currently being considered in Europe. This is important because UK copyright law sits within an EU and international legal framework and Recital 18 of the Information Society Directive recognises the existence of extended collective licensing arrangements in EU member states. It is best practice in developing policy to look at what exists and works in other countries, and there is strong precedent for Extended Collective Licensing in the Nordic countries where it has been in operation for around 50 years. In developing proposals for Orphan Works we have also looked to what works in other countries, for example Canada and Hungary already have orphan works schemes. We note that Canada has operated an orphan works scheme for many years and there have been no legal problems. We’ve been working to make sure that the proposals complement and build upon the EU Directive on orphan works. The main difference will be that the UK scheme will allow broader commercial as well as non-commercial use and because of this we are introducing a series of extra safeguards for creators and rights holders.

It’s important not to confuse the problems of copyright infringement with the issue of Orphan Works. It is illegal under UK law to “knowingly or without authority” strip metadata from “a copy of a copyright work”, and this will continue to be the case when the Orphan Works scheme comes into force. The scheme provides the ability to license copyright works where the owners are genuinely un-findable. We are building in protections to the proposed Orphan Works scheme and photography like Paul Ellis, BAPLA, and FOCAL are helping us through our stakeholder working group. A key safeguard, is that the scheme will include a register of ‘orphaned’ works, and photographers will (if they wish) be able to check the register periodically (for free) for any of their works that may have been wrongly declared as ‘orphan’. Once reunited with their work, the photographer can claim remuneration through the scheme (without having to go to court) – money will have been put aside for them. This is a really important point for us, because we want creators to be paid for their work.

Currently copyright law has a number of anomalies; one of these is that some unpublished works dating back to medieval manuscripts are still in copyright. We understand there has been some concern about withdrawing copyright from works that are anonymous or created under a pen-name. I’d like to reassure readers that this was never the case. This measure is about reducing the term of protection for works that currently enjoy copyright protection beyond the maximum terms set by the EU Term Directive (some of these works are old, such as unpublished medieval manuscripts and unpublished letters from 19th century). The standard term of protection in the UK for an original copyright work is life of the author and 70 years after his or her death. This term, which is set by the EU Term Directive, is 20 years longer than the minimum term set by the international Berne Convention.

Extended collective licensing is dependent on their being collective licensing in the representative sector. So we expect extended collective licensing to have little or no impact on photographers as things stand, because there is very little use of collective licensing in the sector. In addition, any collecting society applying to use extended collective licensing would need to prove it was significantly representative of rights holders for the proposed scheme, and that it had the explicit support of its members for the application. So where rights holders are clearly opposed to extended collective licensing, the application to run an extended collective licensing scheme would not be successful and extended collective licensing could not take place.

Lastly, to comment on copyright exceptions. These are already built into the Berne convention and other international agreements on copyright as an important way to ensure benefits to society (freedom of speech, education & access for the disabled) while protecting the interests of copyright holders. We know that many stakeholders will have a strong interest in the detail of the proposed draft regulations and so we will be publishing the draft regulations for technical review.

If you have further queries, please feel free to get in touch at copyrightEnquiries@ipo.gov.uk and we will do our best to answer your questions and / or point you in the right direction.

solutions?

To be naively simple, first NO government or any other organization can "withdraw" copyright as per the previous contributors piece.
It cannot be done, as copyright is an inherent part of any created work, whether it be the previous contributors piece, or anything else.
At Uni here years ago I noticed how such people were desperately seeking to remove human rights by altering the meaning and usage of words. Not "genocide" but "ethnic cleansing"; not "homosexual" but "gay" etcetera, and I obviously can see this sophism coming from miles away and sure enough, even the BJ 's headlines says "government copyright changes".
Really, yes, and the world is flat and the Moon made of cream cheese.

My copyright has nothing to do with the Government, and it is the government that changes (and please as soon as possible) and not my copyright at all.

No law passed by government can change copyright, as it is an inherent and inalienable part of a photographer's output, without which it is not his.

They are trying to shut us up, just take no notice at all, because if an individual or organization or government reproduces work without paying for it, in common law that is THEFT, just like it tells you on every DVD you rent or buy.

And we have the same rights as Sony or HMV, or the BBC, or the rather verbally inaccurate BJ, and that really is all there is to it.

If you WANT to gag the press completely surely refusing people payment for their work-often made at the risk of their lives is one way to do it.

To counter this IMHO just refuse to photograph anyone in government at all: do NOT follow the P.M. to Afghanistan, do NOT cover Syria or the Derby, do NOT work.There's no point if you lose by it, is there? (I'm quoting Cameron here)

Had the teachers done the same we would have avoided the revolting imposition of university charges on this generation by people who didn't have to pay to go to university at all: including all those apathetic teachers.

Reply to government response

In paragraph 4 it states, "once reunited with their work, the photographer can claim remuneration.......money will have been put aside for them" isn't this the point the photography industry is trying to state? Even though there will be money put aside, it may not necessarily reflect the quality of the piece in question, and how much the photographer would have charged. Even if the photographer is paid for the work they will have no choice in how that image is used.

Government Response

Lisa, thanks for your question on remuneration for photographers, and the concerns about ability to control licensing of works.

One of the most important safeguards for the scheme is, we believe, the requirement to do a diligent search for the owner of the copyright work - the standards for what constitutes a proper/sufficient search are being discussed in the working groups we mentioned in our comment above.

Where the photographer/owner of the copyright work is running a commercial business and particularly where their business has an online presence, we anticipate that the diligent search process is highly likely to find them. Once the searcher (prospective user) has found the owner, they will be required to get the permission of the photographer before they can use the photograph and if permission is granted pay whatever rate is negotiated. In this circumstance, the photograph in question could not be licensed as an orphan work.

Where the diligent search does not find a rights-holder, for example an old photograph of a historical event, which is held in an archive, then we expect that this work would be licensed under the orphan works scheme. In most cases, we expect that the owners of these old photographs, for the most part held in archives, never to appear. If they do appear and reclaim their rights to the photograph they will, as discussed, be able to claim remuneration for the use of their photograph.

While it is true that, in such a case, the photographer will have had no say in the price set, it is also true to say that without the scheme there are, at the moment, many instances of photographs being used without the owner's permission that result in no money for the owner. As far as possible, the remuneration rates for the use of orphan works will be set at the going rate for the type of work and type of use. Appropriate rate setting is also being discussed with stakeholders in the working group.

Lastly, it is worth noting that one of the other things the working group is discussing is whether the Authorising Body (the organisation which will have the authority to grant orphan works licenses) should refuse licenses to users who wish to adapt or use a work in a way that the owner might think was derogatory. So although it would not have been possible to consult the owner of the orphan work, their interests could be taken into account before the licence was granted.

I hope this explanation has provided more clarity to our thinking on how the scheme will operate and the impact it will have.

Photographers Speak Out

So far the Copyright Hub concept (led by Hooper) is the closest business-led initiative to the copyright issues mentioned above by the IPO by looking at how to modernise the use of copyright content that includes orphan works.
We don't need legislative changes beyond the EU Directive on orphan works. In Canada they had to revise their legislation last year as photographers were not even recognised as copyright holders until then, therefore prior to this Canadian "orphan works" were not an issue.
As for extended collective licensing, the "Nordic countries" are a tiny market in comparison to the UK and even they think the UK's proposals are unrealistic. The idea of checking a simple registry doesn't factor in the amount of time and effort it will take (which photographers have very little of while trying to earn a living), and "claiming remuneration through the scheme". It sounds very much like a collecting society structure. How can a photographer wait a year or two until they get money they're owed, if they even know about the "scheme". Also there's no infastructure to facilitate such a "scheme", it will mean photographers will again have to check several sources to find out where their images have been extended and what money is owed to them.
If the proposed changes to copyright are so good, why are the largest news agencies in the UK challenging these proposals with a Judicial Review? The AP have the full press release on their website clearly arguing why it's a bad idea.
Copyright is NOT a concept to be moulded at the whim of ministers, it's a basic right afforded to creators. If the UK gov wants to continue to have a vibrant & profitable creative industry don't do it with these sweeping changes.

Foreign rightholders concerned

Dear Sirs at the IPO,

as a german photojournalist, distributing my work by several internet platforms including a news agency located at London, I feel affected what's going on in Your country.

You wrote yesterday:

"One of the most important safeguards for the scheme is, we believe, the requirement to do a diligent search for the owner of the copyright work - the standards for what constitutes a proper/sufficient search are being discussed in the working groups we mentioned in our comment above."

Well, that's what nobody with a little bit practise in the business would recognise as a "safeguard" at all. A employee being tasked to find within two or three hours after the editors conference some hundred pictures has very little possibility to exercise "dilligent search" for the details of the copyright holders. So it's very tempting to declare a picture as "orphaned", to save the time to look into the Metadata for getting it correctly credited, if this decision makes the use legal even if this working step is been omitted (and in the result the payment too).

Numerous cases of pictures with incorrect or without credits notes, lack of payment (sometimes over a year even in cases without doubts) provides us very little trust in the faultlessness of the work of our clients and in their honesty.
That's why a spongy phrase like "dilligent search" cann't get anybody calmed down, who called the editor several times over more than a half year for the money, meanwhile he has the concerned journal issue before him on the desk.

***

"Where the photographer/owner of the copyright work is running a commercial business and particularly where their business has an online presence, we anticipate that the diligent search process is highly likely to find them."

Of course it would. But as I wrote yet, it's highly likely that nobody will do so, who is used to ignore the informations about name of the photographer, phone number, local and e-mail adress and payment terms included in the metadata of the picture. Providing these people with the legal usage of "orphaned pictures" doesn't help either.

***

"Once the searcher (prospective user) has found the owner, they will be required to get the permission of the photographer before they can use the photograph and if permission is granted pay whatever rate is negotiated. In this circumstance, the photograph in question could not be licensed as an orphan work."

And these disadvantages cann't really get the editor's extremely thinned staff motivated to spend their short time on "dilligent search".

***

"Where the diligent search does not find a rights-holder, for example an old photograph of a historical event, which is held in an archive, then we expect that this work would be licensed under the orphan works scheme. In most cases, we expect that the owners of these old photographs, for the most part held in archives, never to appear. If they do appear and reclaim their rights to the photograph they will, as discussed, be able to claim remuneration for the use of their photograph."

Well, even if the photographer is alive and wellknown to the editor of the journal using the picture, he may moreor less highly likely not appear, because the decision of the editor to declare the picture he's interested in "orphaned" eliminates the obligation to inform the photographer (or the agency the picture is taken from) on the use. And it's very naive to believe, that a photographer can leaf through every newspapers possibly publishing his pictures - not even on his home market.

***

"While it is true that, in such a case, the photographer will have had no say in the price set, it is also true to say that without the scheme there are, at the moment, many instances of photographs being used without the owner's permission that result in no money for the owner. As far as possible, the remuneration rates for the use of orphan works will be set at the going rate for the type of work and type of use. Appropriate rate setting is also being discussed with stakeholders in the working group."

Here at Germany the prices paid by newspapers and journals vary between five Euros and some hundred Euros. It's very unlikely, that a working group will come to a conclusion, which can get all concerned contractors satisfied.

***

Lastly, You wrote at the further contribution, that stripping the Metadata off a picture is illegal at Your country.

I wonder a lot, that the stop43 group and other concerned people doesn't know about that, otherwise that wouldn't be repeatedly demanded by them.

Sincerely Yours
Peter Hauser

Unfortunately, the IPO has lost all credibility

Dear Intellectual Property Office,

Your response unfortunately only confirms what has long been apparent - that the Intellectual Property Office fail to understand orphan works provisions at even a basic level. The issues have been explained to you many times, and there is scarcely any point doing so yet again here. – explaining to you yet again why ‘diligent search’ provides almost no protection whatsoever, and so on and so forth.

The real question is: to what extent is the IPO merely incompetent, or are you deliberately closing your ears to the issues because you wish to represent only certain interest groups that you have become unhealthily cosy with?

What is encouraging is the fact that you have evidently becoming scared of the emerging backlash against your outrageous proposals, that you appear to be on a damage limitation/propaganda campaign.

Professor Hargreaves was a former Director of the BBC. His review - surprise surprise - completely ignored the submissions of photographers and other rights holders to conclude that legislation that would allow the likes of the BBC to exploit their archive of material for which they have failed to keep proper ownership records. Metadata stripping, which you claim is illegal (what is the penalty???) is something that the BBC has been doing systematically for years without any compunction or apparent penalty,

The IPO introduced a consultation process to implement the BBC’s – sorry, Hargreaves – proposals. Again, the IPO totally ignored the submissions of photographers in the ‘consultation’ and other content creators to make proposals for orphan works and extended collective licensing. The extent of the IPO’s desperation to please institutions like the British Library, the BBC and other organisations that would like to exploit other people’s property, is shown by your preparedness to push through these provisions despite the fact that such proposals would be clearly illegal under international law.

The EU were clearly careful to keep their orphan works provisions as unobjectionable under international law as they could when they limited them to cultural use. Why did the IPO decide that it can ignore international law?

Unfortunately, the IPO simply no longer has any credibility ass an independent government body. Its bureaucrats demonstrate an almost total lack of understanding of the IP sector. They appear to have developed unhealthily close relations with traditional and/or state institutions in the sector, and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what is needed to develop a functioning private sector in the digital age – a safe, regulated market where people can do business without fear of having their property confiscated.

IPO disconnected from reality

Every time I read a statement from the IPO talking about copyright, I feel like I'm sitting in a sex education lesson staffed by virgins. The theory sounds great but the knowledge I'd lacking.

1. Creators have the right to say "not at any price" for a request to use their works. ECL, OW and the very broard "educational" proposed exceptions breach that right.

2. Creators own their property. ECL and OW fundamentally break this link. The IPO want to allow someone else to make risk free money from someone elses property.

3. The IPO ignore creators. I have given the IPO direct evidence that the existence of a Belgian collecting society (ECL style) hast cost me £1500 in lost revenue (and with it tax). The IPO representative did promise to come back to me, but nothing has been forthcoming.

4. The IPO have been asked how many successful prosecutions there have been for stripping metadata. No reply. Why? Because the law is worthless.

5. Moral rights. I have it on record from IPO staff that moral rights (to stop the orphan conveyerbelt) would not be strengthened to include mandatory credits because (and I quote directly) "ministers would find it too hard to understand". There you go then. No need to try a bit harder and help a creator eh IPO?

6. Canadian OW as a good example? How many licenses have been issued under this scheme? Isn't the whole idea about generating "growth"? If you apply the Canadian model the revenue won't pay for the cost of the IPO toilet paper budget will it? Of course the IPO know this but will ensure UK OW (and ECL) goes further. Much further.

7. So there will be no ECL for photos? The IPO will bend over backwards to make sure this happens, and all their growth and revenue predictions are exceeded. The IPO see photographers and individual creators as a problem and what better than to get them into a system (akin to collective farming) that they can understand. The IPO will protest they won't help ECL but will the IPO really stand by and do nothing when thise demanding ECL cannot use a photograph?

7. Photographs get used now without payment or permission? No kidding. OW and ECL legitimise this behaviour and fix will fix this? OW and ECL is - under Berne - legitimising infringement on a massive scale. What about foreign authors who have no idea these (daft) schemes exist? How will they get their due rewards?

I set the price for my work. Berne says I have the right. If a potential user of my property does not agree or can find cheaper elsewhere then so be it. The market functions and I can find ways to be more competitive, or create something closer to what the market will accept. The IPO - govenrment civil servants - now wish to influence, adapt, disrupt and otherwise interfere with the free market approach. Can anyone in the IPO point to a successful, innovative and thriving market that a civil servant has changed for the better by denying legal, recognised rights to one's own property?

If the IPO were truly interested in creators concerns then they would have listened. The IPO are set firmly to transmit. Bring on the Judicial Review.

Anonymous Government response misses the point (again)

First of all I personally always dislike anonymous responses to pieces such as this. If your comment is worth making it is worth standing by. Anonymous (government spokesman) responses are always second best.

This response and the thinking behind it, is wrong on so many fronts

“Industry views are very important to us”

So why do you spend so much time telling us why we are wrong? At the end of the day it is us as creators who stand to lose by whatever new scheme the Government puts in place. The Government is advised by the IPO and the IPO seems to have little or no regard for the creators it suggest are so important!!

“there is strong precedent for Extended Collective Licensing in the Nordic countries where it has been in operation for around 50 years”

The Nordic countries – Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland with a combined population of approx. 25 million, and four different languages that are basically only spoken in these countries. That ECL works in these countries is because they are using it in written works and the schemes were put in place before the internet. The languages are small and self-contained. There is unlikely to be difficulty in controlling unauthorised use etc. Not designed for images and certainly not for the Internet world where English is very much the Language of choice around the world.

The Nordics think we are daft to even consider such schemes as we would have no control whatsoever on them.

“We note that Canada has operated an orphan works scheme for many years and there have been no legal problems”

And how many orphans are licensed using that scheme? As I understand it very few which suggests that either that the scheme is very, very good, or unworkable.

“the UK scheme will allow broader commercial as well as non-commercial use”

So in the UK where newspapers and magazines are legally allowed to publish my work (and do) without credit we are going to make our scheme a commercial one. Now who exactly does that benefit?

Until we have a situation in this country where attributing authors rights (amongst others) automatically is the only acceptable way of publishing it would seem totally daft to then bring in a scheme where we allow people to license uncredited work.

I have had my work published for over 35 years, and only in the past ten has my work been wholly digital. I have moved several times in this period and even though I have alerted all my clients to each change how many will have diligently updated al; their records? Can I remember every single image I have ever distributed or had published? Do I even know of every single publication in that time. No of course not1

“photographers will (if they wish) be able to check the register periodically (for free) for any of their works that may have been wrongly declared as ‘orphan’ “

Really! And how many thousands of images will I have to look through to see on the off chance that one of my images might or might not be there that I might or might not remember that could be thirty five years old? Get real. The sound bite seems to make sense but on examination how can it possibly work in that way. To make sense one has to have creators register their work, and it has to be the user who tries to find the author and if the would-be user can’t trace the author then they cannot use the work – simple as that. There is plenty of work out there, why is it that this one picture or image whose author cannot be identified has to be used? If the author cannot be traced then surely commercial use is out of the question as the providence of the picture cannot be verified? Think of the potential legal problems that could ensue?

“Once reunited with their work, the photographer can claim remuneration through the scheme (without having to go to court) – money will have been put aside for them.”

Oh yes! And who is to decide what my rate for the reproduction or the commercial use shall be. If I have not been asked than I can’t possibly have had a proper say in the contract and it simple does not make sense. Different images have different values. Different circumstances warrant different payments. There is no one size fits all. A Rolls-Royce costs more to hire than a Ford Focus.

“So we expect extended collective licensing to have little or no impact on photographers as things stand.”

If that is the case, why are you so dammed keen to set the system up then? If we don’t need it then don’t introduce it. If you know that because of some scheme you have in mind that we do need it in the future then you had better come clean and tell us what you have in mind.

And the second response:

“One of the most important safeguards for the scheme is, we believe, the requirement to do a diligent search for the owner of the copyright work”

There is currently no way to do a ‘diligent’ search. The assumption that every photographer commercial or otherwise automatically publishes his or her work on the internet is plain bonkers. Most of my work goes only to a specific client, who will at the time only use a small selection of the work. Relatively little is searchable on the ‘Net’. It is however a simple matter for work to change hands, even if it hasn’t been licensed for such distribution and illegal uses of such work happens all the time, and yet it is most likely that photographers only ever get to see the tiniest percentage of such misuses.

“While it is true that, in such a case, the photographer will have had no say in the price set, it is also true to say that without the scheme there are, at the moment, many instances of photographs being used without the owner's permission that result in no money for the owner. As far as possible, the remuneration rates for the use of orphan works will be set at the going rate for the type of work and type of use. Appropriate rate setting is also being discussed with stakeholders in the working group. “

It is impossible for a central authority to set a price for uses – most especially commercial ones without resorting to actually asking the creator. There is no such thing as the ‘going rate’ for most work of any merit. The idea of a ‘going rate’ iis one promulgated by picture editors and would be users of work to confuse and disorient those creators who are new to the market place. The going rate for my work is the rate at which I wish to license it. That rate is likely to be different from my colleagues who are likely to be doing different work under different conditions with different equipment. There is no such thing as the universal going rate for bespoke created works.

“one of the other things the working group is discussing is whether the Authorising Body (the organisation which will have the authority to grant orphan works licenses) should refuse licenses to users who wish to adapt or use a work in a way that the owner might think was derogatory.”

If that is not the daftest statement I have heard so far. How on earth can any Authorising body know what a rights owner may or may not regard as derogatory unless they ask them – oh yes they can’t, because it is an orphan work.

If the author cannot be identified so that the question may be asked than that alone is enough to tell me that the work should not be licensed until that author can be found.

“I hope this explanation has provided more clarity to our thinking on how the scheme will operate and the impact it will have.”

Oh yes, I think without question you have made it quite clear. We should be afraid, very afraid…

Orphan Works

What the Government is proposing is the greatest theft of private property since the Russian Revolution.

I have invested hundreds of thousands of pounds building up an archive of aerial photographs and what is up until now a very successful business. I earn 100% of my living from licencing these photographs. Because it costs a lot of money to take aerial photographs, they are naturally very expensive. Under this scheme, customers who want to use my photographs will have a huge financial incentive to declare my aerial photographs as Orphan Works. After all who is going to pay hundreds of pounds for a photograph when they can pay an Orphan works fee of say five pounds.

All this talk of diligent searches is nonsense. If somebody wants to to undertake a "diligent search" and not find what it is they are looking for it is very easy to choose search criteria so get the desired result. For example if they want to steal / licence as Orphan, an aerial photograph of Manchester, then they may do a diligent search for " Cityscape, grey sky, houses" the result of which is highly unlikely to find the target photograph. Similarly, if searching by image identifying software it is easy to manipulate a photograph so it will not be automatically recognised as the original. Simply change a few things like colour, cropping etc and its undetectable.

With an image now officially an Orphan, the photographer must find that it has been used which means looking through perhaps millions of images or reading every printed publication, an impossible task. Even if the photographer performs this superhuman task and claims his Orphan works fee , how much will he get. Will the Orphan Works agency know how much a helicopter costs to rent? I charge hundreds of pounds to use one of my images, yet the " market rate " at micro stock agencies is just a few pounds. How will they decide who gets what or will we just get a communist style flat fee for everyone.

This Orphan Works legislation will have a devastating effect on my business which has taken me decades to build up. With 2 million visitors per year ( the same as the tower of London gets but at rather zero cost to the taxpayer ) my business has been promoting Britain to the world, yet my only thanks is the confiscation of my life's work.

Just who is this legislation supposed to benefit ? Large overseas multinational corporations who pay no tax but do have dinner with "the right people"? Like most UK photographers I pay 20% income tax, 9% national insurance and 20% VAT. I have no money flowing to exotic locations in the Bahamas. Currently the only flow of money is into the UK as I sell to many customers worldwide. If my business ceases or emigrates, this will be income lost to the UK treasury, a situation set to repeat itself tens of thousands of times over as photographers leave or worse close down and claim the benefits they were previously funding.

This legislation has already started to have an effect as starting last year I am doing most of my stock photography abroad in countries with stronger copyright protection.

To 'The Intellectual Property Office', a.k.a 'The Giovernment'

'Intellectual Property Office', please identify yourself, because I know who you are.

How curious it is that in the two public places so far (here, and a Guardian article: http://bit.ly/U9S65a) in which photographers have challenged your plans to confiscate our property, and which have enabled comments, you have immediately jumped in with your propaganda and disinformation.

What does it cost in staff time to do this, to monitor the media in this way? And who pays for it? Of course WE do, from the tax we pay from our diminishing earnings.

At this very moment a Bill (the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill) is passing through the House of Lords which will severely diminish our control over our property, and our ability as professionals to make our living from it. If you, IPO, were actually confident that you would get the legislation passed that you want, you wouldn't be wasting your time and staff salaries in trying to persuade us: we're usually too trivial for you to be bothered with that. You didn't last time, when we beat you unexpectedly, in 2010. You ignored us until it was too late for you. Now you pop up all over the place with your propaganda.

This is a sign of great weakness, IPO. If you were really winning this argument you wouldn't have to do this. Legally and politically you're on thin ice and you know it. The tide of history is turning against you. Other solutions to the 'problems' you trumpet are appearing, such as the Copyright Hub. Your plans breach the UK's international obligations under Berne, as has been reported here, and we know you know it. We KNOW you have cast about among various legal chambers, most of which told you exactly that, until you finally found a fairly low grade chamber which gave you the opinion your boss wants. We KNOW what you are doing.

As I said, I know exactly who you are. I shall be seeing you in person next Tuesday morning. Kindly tell your boss Mr. Quilty that OUR TANKS ARE ON HIS LAWN and we're not removing them until he removes his from ours, in the little time he has left before he is redeployed out of the IPO, and, thankfully, out of our lives, to go and darken the lives of others. He's overstayed his welcome.

IPO disconnected from reality.....YES

Yes Simon Brown is spot on, they certainly do seem to be living in a very strange world somewhat detached from reality..

The reality is that there is little incentive for many users of photography to play fair, honestly and decently these days.

Most photographers already know to their cost that it is too tempting to use a photograph without permission and wait until/if the photographer notices. Then the most they are likely to have to pay is only what they would have been asked to pay had they first got in contact with the photographer and negotiated a fee for use with them.

Often the amount the photographer is able to claim is so small that it simply is not worth the effort of taking such cases to court. This may change a bit with the introduction of small claims copyright courts but time will tell.

With so many organisations, not just the BBC automatically and knowingly
stripping out of the means of identification of the owner of pictures (metadata), it is essential that regardless of any changes to copyright legislation that punitive charges can be awarded for this action.

It is also essential that photographers can bring claims for pictures used without permission for considerably more than would be the case had users got in contact first. This should all be addressed at this time.

This industry is set to be decimated by the proposed inept changes planned by the IPO on behalf of the government. These appear to be simply to the benefit of the large organisations that can feed of the work of the small man/woman.

IPO Contact Details

Please contact the IPO team on the following:

information@ipo.gov.uk

01633 814000

Members of the policy team will return phone calls to discuss matters.

Contact the IPO?

Seriously, what is the point? The IPO have had all this explained to them so many times, in so many submissions, why should photographers take time out to explain it to you once againa and help to dig you out of your hole?

You can go away and read for the first time some of those dozens or hundreds of industry submissions that were made to you, if you filed them rather than simply binning them.

Welcome Government Response

I'm really pleased to have a Government respond to the BJP article as dialogue is important in finding answers and moving forward. I was pleased to read that it is illegal under UK law to “knowingly or without authority” strip metadata from “a copy of a copyright work.” Excellent, I think I'd be correct in saying that all photographers would raise a toast to that but we've never known what procedures and penalties exist for such violations. The stripping of metadata is endemic, many picturedesks strip out the metadata automatically and the BBC have also been alleged of this practice so can the anonymous spokesperson from the IPO use this forum to enlighten us as to what procedures exist to seek redress when this happens and what the penalties are. Surely, this is central to these proposals to ensure OW aren't created in the first place. This so-called protection has been a part of Copyright legislations since at least 1988 so surely something must be in place. Silence on this matter alone would hardly inspire going forward with such radical new proposals that seem to take away significant rights of the individual photographer. Once again, it appears the Government are here to serve large corporations who are morally corrupt and avoid paying millions into the UK economy while decimating the rights of hard working individual photographers. I look forward to hearing from the anonymous Government spokesperson.

What the IPO needs to do

The IPO needs to admit that it made a mistake, and withdraw its orphan works and extended collective licensing proposals NOW. Not offer to waste people's time with telephone conversations.

You are being paid to screw up UK copyright law, while we are trying to rescue the situation for free. Rather than waste a huge amount of time of people engaged on more important things - creating IP - you should stop wasting people's time, and go and do your jobs - properly this time.

Still up, monitoring?

Are you seriously saying that an IPO representative is monitoring these postings after 11pm on a Saturday evening? Worried? Seems likely. That's what happens when bureaucrats ignore the mass of reason from the creative industries. The IPO should be put to bed, and not just this evening.

Welcome Government Response

Correction
The stripping of metadata is illegal as defined by the The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003. Still plenty of time for the Government to have procedures and penalties in place to protect the work of creators and prevent OW. This has to be real and and effective way to prevent OW so please Government spokesperson explain what procedures and penalties exist when this happens.

@IPO Contact Details

Glynn, if you're not being paid to do this at 11.20pm on a Saturday, GO TO BED.

If you ARE being paid to do this at 11:20 pm on a Saturday, THIS IS A SCANDALOUS WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY.

I'm doing this in my own time, at my own expense. You're not.

And to everyone else: you're going to make a phone call, at your own expense, to listen to IPO propaganda?

IPO: man up. Grow a spine. If you want us to listen to you, give us a freephone number to call. Propagandise to us at YOUR expense, not ours.

Metadata stripping not illegal

"The stripping of metadata is illegal as defined by the The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003"

Rob, those regulations don't make metadata stripping illegal. 'Illegal' means a criminal offence. Those regulations just treat certain types of metadata-stripping might be treated as equivalent to a simple breach of copyright, which is not at all the same thing as being 'illegal'.

It's unclear why the IPO above say that metadata stripping is illegal, unless they've come across another law that no one else has heard of. It seems just to be a mistake on the IPO's part - which would be par for the course. It's slightly scary that they don't know this stuff though.

Metadata stripping not illegal

"The stripping of metadata is illegal as defined by the The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003"

Rob, those regulations don't make metadata stripping illegal. 'Illegal' means a criminal offence. Those regulations just treat certain types of metadata-stripping might be treated as equivalent to a simple breach of copyright, which is not at all the same thing as being 'illegal'.

It's unclear why the IPO above say that metadata stripping is illegal, unless they've come across another law that no one else has heard of. It seems just to be a mistake on the IPO's part - which would be par for the course. It's slightly scary that they don't know this stuff though.

Response to IPO comments

The IPO has received so many responses from photographers in its so-called "consultations", and ignored them all. Why does the IPO think that it understands photographers' business models better than photographers themselves do? I would like to associate myself 100% with the repsonses by Paul Ellis , Simon Crofts and others above.

IPO hasn't thought this through.

There's another aspect of these proposals which the IPO has not dealt with and should have. I did make a submission to them about it but see no reference to it by them.
I shoot mostly in educational establishments, put the images in my photolibrary from where they're used by textbook publishers, government departments and similar. I have permission to use the images in these ways because they are available only through my own library. I know all the researchers and editors and they know they can use them only in positive contexts. I can and do refuse any borderline requests which I think would be inappropriate or might embarrass the young people pictured.

Many of my photos were on the BBC Schools website but, when they were first uploaded, all the metadata had been stripped. Others have confirmed this is standard for the BBC. It was re-inserted only when I complained loud and long and was clearly something they were not used to doing. My photos are copied and used so often without my knowledge or permission from websites which have stripped the metadata that I spend most of my time chasing these infringements in order to be paid and have them removed. But, at least these unauthorised uses are clearly illegal and the result of theft. Under the IPO's proposals this sort of thing will be legal. Anyone finding my photos of school kids will, after the farcical "Diligent search", be free to use them how they like, sometimes in the most inappropriate ways, to the hurt and embarrassment of the young people. And guess who will be left to sort out the mess?
What is the IPO's view of this? Why are you proposing such a damaging thing for our young people when it is wholely unnecessary and plainly dangerous?
This general principle also applies to all photographers who make agreements or contracts with the people they photograph. At its extreme, professional models have commercial contracts with photographers which limit the use of those photos. When those images start appearing in inappropriate places, who are the model agencies going to sue?
There may be a case for cultural use of old photos and documents but absolutely none for any commercial use of copyrighted material. To my mind, the real problem IP holders face these days is the law in the UK has no teeth so photo users see no real reason not to carry on infringing others' copyright. It's a simple commercial decision: they're better off infringing and paying on the few occasions when they get caught. What we need are stronger laws and penalties to change this balance. The law on shoplifting doesn't allow the thief to just give back the stolen goods. So, why apply that reasoning to people who steal my commercial property? It's bonkers.
Who infringes my copyright? Here's a few I discovered over the last 12 months: a Conservative MP (one of our lawmakers!), many magazines, textbook publishers (literally hundreds of times), Quangos, a TV News station in India, a web services company in the Netherlands (70 times), an electrician in Liverpool who, once he had paid me for the image he'd stolen, sent me an email saying "I was a rip off!", schools, teachers, a builder in Ireland, a publisher in Switzerland, and infringers in at least 15 other countries.

I know the IPO can deal only with the UK but IP and copyright is a worldwide issue and some countries have sensible robust laws. IP creators in the UK provide a huge chuck of government income and, if these daft IPO proposals go through, they will reduce significantly our ability or desire to create. Why bother if the government, in effect, is going to nick most of it?
Remember, most photographers are almost on the breadline. A few make very good livings but most of us do not come close anymore. For myself, after 40+ years as a freelance with my own book published by Penguins and work in National Collections, exhibitions throughout Europe, I've never reached the national average income and, two years ago it was down to £10k. I, like most other photographers, look out and see our work continually stolen and now the IPO wants to nationalise our own work. How does any of this encourage creators to continue? IPO, tell me that, please?

Think again, start again. This is too important.

To begin with, orphan works clearly have a value, hence this fight to use free, valuable content. There is actually very little need to use an orphan work. Its easy to find licensed work.

So why is this happening? There is an argument for education but I'm not buying that in this context. As it stand unless there are tough, disabling penalties in place for those who abuse the system this is a scheme that will only allow wholesale use of images at low devalued prices.

Do you doubt this? What about piracy? Look at the music industry and how file sharing has destroyed that. The film industry and the enormous amount of piracy in place. These example prove that people are happy to steal if they think they can get away with it. Using an image with the risk of a low charge Vs the actual cost for licensed use will be a no brainer for anyone and it will become acceptable practice.

The truth of the matter has been alluded to elsewhere. We have a corrupt BBC stripping metadata from images, ignoring requests to stop this, and now complaining that they have archives of orphan works that they could use for the public good. It simply does not add up.

I am arguing that the creators must be respected and orphan works should never be used with this system. If you require an image of value then pay for it, pay the creator directly and be proud that you are supporting an industry that you value. Don't hide behind bureaucracy and become an anonymous civil servant who destroys peoples livelihoods for the greater good of the government. The Government IS the people, our taxes paid in this country pay for these organizations. It is your job to acknowledge and adopt to genuine grievances. Anything else is corrupt and shameful.

Dear Mr Anonymous civil servant. You could wake up. Its not too late to become a human again. There are genuine arguments and grievances here and this current format that is suggested must be changed. Silence and ignorance are not defenses. You are personally responsible and earning a living for accepting this responsibility. What harm could you do by creating a new and better way to respect intellectual property. This is not about fighting people or looking for a way to push a bill through, its about listening and responding fairly and in a responsible manner. Its not a game or a competition to defeat people. We have too much of that in general. I appeal to your humanity and grace to listen and think again.

More musings on the IPO

1. So the Google Review was 'Independent"? Prof Hargreaves expressed his thanks of the help and assistance given by the IPO. Lots of responses - but the issues raised by photographers have been ignored. The British Library pressed their case and the IPO pushed their OW/ECL agenda.

2. "...we (The IPO) set up stakeholder working groups, which are looking at and advising us on detailed issues of how the schemes could work in practice." Stakeholders are creators. The rest - British Library and JISC - look after or consume what creators create. Creators have been ignored, leading to this situation where the IPO now sees the legitimate property of creators as being open to exploitation and commercial gain by others.

3. And we haven't even started on a discussion over the IPO seeking to extend their power over the rights of creators. The ERRB carries a clause that will allow the unelected creatorhaters at the IPO to amend and alter law without that troublesome parliamentary scrutiny that a working democracy would expect.

It beggars belief that our taxes, paid on earnings derived from creative endeavours, can be spent by the IPO on changes that will deny rights and income to individuals and companies alike.

I think Paul Ellis is right; Its time for the IPO chief creatorhater Ed Quilty to go, for these unwelcome and unwarranted clauses to be pulled from the the ERRB, and for copyright to be removed from the responsibility of the IPO. Creatorhaters cannot be trusted with such a fundamental property right.

More musings on the IPO

1. So the Google Review was 'Independent"? Prof Hargreaves expressed his thanks of the help and assistance given by the IPO. Lots of responses - but the issues raised by photographers have been ignored. The British Library pressed their case and the IPO pushed their OW/ECL agenda.

2. "...we (The IPO) set up stakeholder working groups, which are looking at and advising us on detailed issues of how the schemes could work in practice." Stakeholders are creators. The rest - British Library and JISC - look after or consume what creators create. Creators have been ignored, leading to this situation where the IPO now sees the legitimate property of creators as being open to exploitation and commercial gain by others.

3. And we haven't even started on a discussion over the IPO seeking to extend their power over the rights of creators. The ERRB carries a clause that will allow the unelected creatorhaters at the IPO to amend and alter law without that troublesome parliamentary scrutiny that a working democracy would expect.

It beggars belief that our taxes, paid on earnings derived from creative endeavours, can be spent by the IPO on changes that will deny rights and income to individuals and companies alike.

I think Paul Ellis is right; Its time for the IPO chief creatorhater Ed Quilty to go, for these unwelcome and unwarranted clauses to be pulled from the the ERRB, and for copyright to be removed from the responsibility of the IPO. Creatorhaters cannot be trusted with such a fundamental property right.

Mass opposition to IPO plans

Without repeating the arguments made by the photo industry and those speaking and acting for us in their own time and at their own expense against the IPO's incredible plans for the future of our copyright, I wish to add my voice to the dissenting majority of creators who expect that a government body should act FOR its public and industry, listening to their opinion, reasons, and acting upon them, rather than employ the insensate oppositional behaviour in evidence thus far. Please take this as notice that fellow objectors and I will not let this matter rest.

Utterly flawed proposal

Dear IPO - I can only reinforce what others have already written here. There is a reason why so many organisations have stood together to oppose this bill. The proposed changes will likely kill the UK photography industry. Two of the most obvious failings are:

1. Insisting that a work will be declared orphan only after the user has conducted a 'diligent' search is naive in the extreme. Most users will not bother or only make a token effort, and even those that do actually try are unlikely to be able to attribute the work because a) photographers do not publish all their work on the web and 2) many web based platforms automatically strip metadata when images are uploaded. Have you ever actually tried to identify the author of a selection of photos you have found on the web? It's not easy.

2. There are no standard rates for photography - images and their usage are unique and each attracts a different price. Additionally, many images are licensed on an exclusive basis and cannot be licensed to any other parties. And as the author of a work I have to have the the choice not to license an image - to protect m fees and ensure the exclusivity of licenses I have already issued.

Julian

Reply to Paul Ellis

Dear Paul Ellis

Never assume things. I am not from the IPO office. I am opposed to the proposed legislation.

"Glynn, if you're not being paid to do this at 11.20pm on a Saturday, GO TO BED."

A meaningless childish rant.

"If you ARE being paid to do this at 11:20 pm on a Saturday, THIS IS A SCANDALOUS WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY."

A wild, incorrect assumption from merely providing contact details should some people like to contact the IPO office to express their opinions.

A full time professional photography since the early 90s with my own rights managed sports picture agency of professional sportsmen and women I have a vested interest in opposing Vince Cable's planned copyright changes.

"I'm doing this in my own time, at my own expense. You're not."

Another incorrect assumption as I am doing this in my own time. The cost of the mobile phone call to the IPO is part of my basic monthly phone contract - I left a message which took less than 90 seconds, they kindly returned the call. There is always the option to email.

I have little time for people who complain about copyright matters and don't lift a finger to show support for our industry - I accept that large numbers of complainants don't always change matters.

The proposed Orphan Works which the Gov tried to put through a few years ago was shelved because of pressure from our industry. I wonder how many professional photographers' bothered to voice their opinion with the people directly involved in the Orphan Works legislation back then? Or is it the same old organisations and individuals who can only be bothered to fight our corner?

This law will affect photographers' worldwide, it's great to see that someone from Germany has taken the time and effort to post some good points here.

I learned from the IPO that they are consulting with BAPLA regarding the operation of the registry office - procedures and fees - I am opposed to the Gov setting up this registry. I have successfully pursued several companies worldwide for copyright theft on the internet without the requirement of the state.

The IPO mentioned the Imperial war museum has approx 2 million images which cannot be released under present laws - many images taken by unknown soldiers' and authors' during the first world war. It's these sort of mages the Gov would like to make orphan works.

I am totally opposed to the proposed legislation, including a registry office, as there is no way of defining an Orphan Work. Also because of the generous defence in law to use images merely because the metadata is claimed to be missing and the owner could not be found - floored by the ease at which metadata can be stripped out through various means, intentionally or unintentionally.

IPO contact

Glynn, my apologies, I think I was the first to assume that you were responding from the IPO. Your post:

"Please contact the IPO team on the following:
...
Members of the policy team will return phone calls to discuss matters."

is worded very much as though it is a post from the IPO asking people to contact them.

Dear IPO, I'd like to believe you....

Dear IPO, I'd like to believe your reassurances, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced, and these issues are far too important to myself and photographers in general to take any chances.
When there is such united and widespread opposition to your proposals, do you really think saying we haven't properly understood them is good enough? Photographers in general are quite an intelligent bunch, and we take this stuff seriously. The industry response is led by people who have spent their working lives in this business. Instead of telling such people that they don't get it, how about taking a few moments to consider the possibility that you are the ones who don't get it?

IPO Contact - Simon C

Simon,

No problems.

Many thanks for your apology. There are few people who use forums or invited comment sections, civil enough to apologise these days.

I have a smile on my face about the matter and I am not annoyed in the slightest.

@Glynn

Glynn, I apologise, but to me (and others) the wording of your 'IPO Contact Details' post read exactly as if you were an IPO staff member representing the IPO. If that were the case, and you were being paid to monitor the media and respond to comments at 11:20pm on a Saturday, then I maintain that that would be a scandalous waste of public money.

You said: 'I have little time for people who complain about copyright matters and don't lift a finger to show support for our industry - I accept that large numbers of complainants don't always change matters.' I agree. In my own time and at my own expense, over the last two years I have written more than 150,000 words of submissions to the IPO, Parliamentary committees and others:

http://www.stop43.org.uk/pages/submissions/submissions.html

I have given verbal evidence to the BIS Select Committee; attended all bar two of the IPO's Copyright Consultation events held in London; attended innumerable other meetings concerned with this; and attend the IPO's Working Group on orphan works and ECL at which I try to defend creators' rights. This is why I did not attempt to answer the spurious remarks made in the IPO's comment above: all the other commenters here have done that instead. What can I possibly add in reply without yet again repeating what I have already said to the IPO, in great detail and at great length?

Whatever else they might say, the IPO certainly cannot claim not have heard photographers' voices. They have simply chosen to discount us.

The IPO's destructive plans can be stopped in Parliament and in the courts, which is why I urge everyone reading this to contact Parliamentarians and make your views known. Guidance on going about this, and key contacts, are all available at stop43.org.uk.

Not even the UK government agrees with your stance, IPO

29 October 2012 – The All-Party Intellectual Property Group has today released a report which urges the Government to get a grip on how intellectual property (IP) policy is made.

[see whole document at: http://www.allpartyipgroup.org.uk/pdfs/The%20role%20of%20Government%20in%20promoting%20and%20protecting%20IP.pdf. The following quotes are taken from this]

"People’s criticisms of the IPO’s policy making process appear to have been ignited by their most recent recommendations in relation to copyright. There were many groups who supported these recommendations and the process by which they came about, however a very large number did not. The process the IPO followed clearly does not have the support of all its stakeholders and we believe that the issues raised suggest structural weaknesses in how IP policy is developed. We conclude therefore that the IPO does not have the confidence of a broad swathe of its stakeholders. ...

"When the officials from the IPO gave evidence, they were very clear that they saw their role as providing balance - they see this balance as ensuring consumers can have access to content. ...

"We are concerned that the IPO is not a champion of intellectual property and from their evidence, they do not see this as their role. This needs to be rethought. ...

"We were also concerned that officials from the IPO find it difficult to describe intellectual property as a property right. It was described as a framework by one official which immediately undermines it. If the IPO sees IP as a framework then it suggests they see it as something that can be shaped and altered at will. We question whether such a laissez fair attitude would be taken to other property rights and if they were, whether senior Officials and Ministers would allow such an attitude to pervade. We think that because intellectual property is often a specialised subject, the IPO has been allowed freer rein by senior officials and Ministers within BIS, who would otherwise have taken greater interest. ...

"The full report can be accessed on the All Party Group website at http://www.allpartyipgroup.org.uk/. The content of the report was based on written submissions from 57 interested bodies, and three oral evidence sessions held at the House of Commons."

Thieves charter.

I have read many of my associates comments above, and there is little that I would say other than to wholly agree with them. In background I studied law at university, and although I never practiced it, I have extensive knowledge of the technicalities of copyright law.

What you are proposing is a thieves charter. It is economically destructive and fundamentally unethical. You do not appear to have any real understanding of how copyright is used, and even more disturbingly, the commercial reality of working in the creative industries. Put shortly, you do not understand the sectors you are attempting to legislate for.

More disturbing still from a legal perspective is that you appear utterly determined to ignore (and worse still possibly even surpress) the views of stake holders whose positions are at odds with your desires. I feel obliged to remind you that we live in a democracy. You are in office to balance the views of the population and maintain a functional society, not to fuel the greed and exploitation of certain corporate interests at the expense of individuals and creators.

The creative sector in the UK is a significant one. We are well known. I can tell you that concern regarding this legislation spreads across more sectors than photography including authors, illustrators, artists and many others. None of these jobs are highly paid, and yet when we listen to your discussions in parliament, we are routinely presented by certain individuals as greedy and that a shift is needed in the balance of power between creators and users. May I enquire, exactly what work has the IPO done to establish what that balance of power really is, and have you on finding the results chosen to ignore it? Do you know what the difference in earnings is between for example an author/copywriter/photographer/illustrator and certain large unnamed commercial organizations? Many of the allegations I have heard from certain individuals are ignorant at best, and a display of abject greed at worst.

The beneficiaries of the proposed legislation do not need this money. They are already highly profitable. If anything, I would say that they should be putting money back into the economy in the form of further spending, rather than trying to grow their profits at the expense of others. I find it even more ironic that, if news broadcasts are to be believed, some of these organizations do not even pay tax here, and yet still it would appear that they may be influencing our legislation at the expense of UK creators (who are also voters).

The UK currently has a productive creative sector. We innovate and lead. You should be attempting to encourage it by strengthening copyright legislation, however your current approach will almost certainly destroy it within a few years.

The only question left for us if you pass this bill will be, do we cease to trade, or do we find a new legal jurisdiction to trade in which better supports us?

Slow down. Instead of preaching constantly how you are right, understand how you are catastrophically wrong.

Reply to Paul Ellis

Paul,

Good to hear back from you. The apology was not required but good of you anyway.

When I heard about this latest attempt to bastardise existing UK Copyright laws I felt drained before I even started to register my opposition.

In your case, due to your close involvement and meetings with various bodies on this matter, you must be exhausted.

Even though I feel as if I am hitting my head against a brick wall I will continue to fight this one.

Further questions for IPO poster

According to your second comment, an 'appropriate rate setting is also being discussed with stakeholders in the working group.' Does this mean that the IPO is intending, for example, to use the AOP's usage calculator http://www.the-aop.org/information/usage-calculator as a guideline, based on commercial rates?

My images are regularly licensed for thousands of pounds each in the context of on and off-line advertising campaigns - will this level of payment be provided for through the remuneration scheme?

You state the 'Authorising Body... should refuse licenses to users who wish to adapt or use a work in a way that the owner might think was derogatory. How exactly is the Authorising Body going to know what the owner might think was derogatory if they don't know who the owner is?

Furthermore you state 'It is illegal under UK law to “knowingly or without authority” strip metadata from “a copy of a copyright work”.'

How is this going to be policed? There is no way of knowing who stripped the metadata, so absolutely nothing to prevent anyone deliberately stripping metadata. Thinking otherwise is disingenuous and wilfully naive.

my 2p

I've been making submissions over copyright since the 1970's when I made a submission to the Justice Whiford committee which led to the 1988 Act. Justice Whitford was an independent minded person who tok a long time considering all the technology of the time. That his Act has stood up so well into the 21st Century is proof that his approach worked.

Now we have a dog's dinner of proposed changes to the law cobbled together, not by an independent lawyer but by a committee, who stated their own aims before they even met. Their aims were simple;  make Google happy. Even David Cameron made this the stated aim. Instead of supporting creators their aim is to make it easier for big business to rip off individuals work. No wonder they don't like photographers.

They seem to have swallowed the case for Orphan Works without, as far as I know, any independent analysis of whether the problem is real. Its almost as if only two questions were asked of museums and libraries; Do you want money from Google to digitise your collection of Orphan works? Is there a problem with OW? As far as I know there has been no truly independent audit of whether JISC's figures are accurate.

Questions for IPO poster

Hello IPO,

You seem to have gone quiet... Any chance of some replies to my questions 2 posts above?

The IPO won't respond because they have no response

The IPO can't be expected to respond to the observations made in these comments - simply because they have no response. If they had a response, they would have made it in the past. They simply can't. They have long been following this pattern: spout some nonsense propaganda and misinformation eg. on their own blog or on the Guardian comments or here, then run away and stick their fingers in their ears.

We won't get a response from them - certainly never one that makes sense. But it is important to keep pushing forward common sense to counteract their propaganda. To keep saying the truth. The IPOs plan of ignoring reality is not a good one, and it won't work.

The IPO is not the target audience for these comments, for common sense, for the truth, they will simply become - are becoming - increasingly irrelevant to where the real debate is going on.

IPO & Lords on Copyright

It seems the IPO script has extended to their new IP minister too, you just need to hear the nonsense spouted out at the Lords meeting on 28th January. The IPO apparently ARE listening to us! I truly don't think so!! Throwing out metadata enforcement, throwing out an amendment on enabling third party use of mass produced designs such as photographs, throwing out amendments to orphan works. This is where a ridiculous suggestion was made by Lord Lucas (artist & DACS member), suggesting we photographers simply use an online image searching software programme to find all our orphaned images! As if I have time to do that, I'm too busy trying to earn a living & you know at a point of critical mass they'll charge us. Great idea, thanks for that!
The Lord's that made the most sense and argued for the photo industry (our photo community thanks you) were Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Greenaway (has his own archive photo library) and Lord Bridgeman.
FYI Extended Collective Licensing is being reviewed by the House of Lords tomorrow at 2pm: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=12395).

Sign the Petition to stop UK ECL introduction depriving photographers of their income

SNAP into ACTION and sign this petition!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stop-uk-ecl-introduction-depriving-photographers/