As the European Commission prepares the release of a new Directive on Orphan Works, the British Copyright Council is moving forward with its own proposals, which, BJP understands, has caught off-guard members of the British Photographic Council
Author: Olivier Laurent
23 Nov 2010 Tags: Orphan worksCopyright
Photographers are set for another debate on Orphan Works as the British Copyright Council is consulting with its members on proposals to address the issue, BJP has been told. The draft, which has yet to be officially released but was published on The Russian Photo Blog, is now being discussed among members of the British Photographic Council.
Represented on the British Photographic Council are the Association of Photographers, British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies, British Institute of Professional Photographers, British Press Photographers Association, Bureau of Freelance Photographers, Chartered Institute of Journalists, Editorial Photographers UK, Master Photographers Association, National Association of Press Agencies, National Union of Journalists, Pro-Imaging, Redeye, and The Royal Photographic Society.
BJP understands that the draft proposal was discussed at a 15 November meeting of the British Photographic Council, but that a decision has yet to be reached. The draft proposal, which can be downloaded here, mirrors that of Clause 43 of the Digital Economy Bill unveiled earlier this year. Clause 43 was removed from the final Bill after opposition from photographers and members of the opposition in the House of Commons.
The British Copyright Council's draft proposal reads: "Following an unsuccessful diligent search for the right holder, the use of an orphan work will be enabled through a system based on collective licensing, in ways which consider the interests of creators, right holders and users, whilst complementing the licensing options within the existing system."
It adds: "A mechanism to enable the legitimate use by licensing orphan works could easily be achieved by building upon existing sections of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (in particular sections 143 and 144A and 190 CDPA 1988). This would provide a simple mechanism for obtaining the necessary licences in return for fees or royalties in line with current industry practice and based on long established infrastructures in the creative industries."
Such licensing would be managed by a collecting society relevant to the orphan works - for example, the Design and Artists Copyright Society could license images that are found to be orphan works. However, the British Copyright Council adds, in cases where "no collective management licensing body holds a mandate for the genre or type of work relevant to the work identified as orphan," the licence "would be granted by the Copyright Tribunal."
It adds that "should the owner of the orphan work not claim the fee or royalty within three years of the licence being granted, the money could be used to support creative and/or charitable causes in accordance with distribution rules approved by the membership of the collecting society in question (and recognised at the time when an orphan works licensing scheme is certified)."
In a conversation with BJP, Janet Ibbotson, chief executive of the British Copyright Council, says that the goal of the draft proposal is to pre-empt the European Commission's proposed Directive on Orphan Works, which is expected to be released before the end of the year. The Directive will look at facilitating digitisation and dissemination of cultural works in Europe.
While most members of the British Copyright Council have agreed to the draft proposal, the photographic community has until December to express their views. BJP understands that members of the British Photographic Council have been invited to a 02 December working group meeting with the British Copyright Council to discuss their options.
"As the photographic issue is a particularly complex one, we felt it was fair to invite member organisations of the BCC representing photographers to attend that meeting," says Ibbotson. "We hope they will present an agreed solution but, I emphasise, it is for the photographers' organisations to decide on this point, it is not for the BCC."
According to the British Copyright Council, the photographic community has two options: to ask to be excluded from the proposal, which will mean that all changes proposed would not affect images and photographic work; or to see photography included in the proposal but with its own terms and conditions.
Once the proposal is agreed, the British Copyright Council will consider submitting it to the Intellectual Property Office or the government in upcoming consultations on the future of Intellectual Property rights.
"Clearly the BCC would prefer a solution which includes all works and right holders, so there is no intention to deliberately exclude photographs," Ibbotson tells BJP. "However, we recognise the concerns of the photographic community and are prepared to accept an exclusion if that is what they want. Most of our members want to move ahead swiftly and to have a consensus view on a right holder led solution ready for the next round of consultations/draft legislation, either UK or European, which will involve orphan works and which we expect at any time."
UPDATE - 23 NOVEMBER - 2pm: "There is no unanimity within the British Photographic Council about how to proceed with the BCC draft," says a source close to the BPC. "However, there is an overwhelming agreement that the draft should be focussing on moral rights and prevention of the creation of orphan works in the first place. The British Copyright Council is attacking the problem the wrong way."
UPDATE - 24 NOVEMBER - 2.30pm: Speaking to BJP, John Toner, freelance organiser for the National Union of Journalist and a representative of the British Photographic Council, says that within the BPC "there is no enthusiasm for the BCC’s proposal as it stands, and we are seeking to add some conditions to it.
Toner adds: "The most important of these is that we wish to see major improvements in moral rights as a precondition for any legislation on orphan works. Moral rights legislation in the UK is notoriously weak, and we consider it an absurdity that orphan works legislation is being proposed without such an improvement. Unless authors’ rights to accreditation are strengthened the number of orphan works will continue to grow."
BJP understands that the British Photographic Council wishes to try to influence the BCC proposal before discussing other options.
Check back for further updates...
I find it disappointing that the British Copyright Council instead of grabbing this opportunity to make things better for creators, and of course I do include photographers, the simply seem to be making the same mistakes that were made with the original Digital Economy Bill.
Surely this would be the ideal opportunity to right some of the wrongs that we currently have, the most obvious being the lack of a mandatory right to be recognised as the author of ones own work.
As photographers we find that Newspapers, magazines and some books do not need to give us a credit, even when we assert our moral right to one. And why should we have to assert our moral rights to a credit for reproduction of work that we have created. Surely that is a basic human right?
But no, it would appear that the B.C.C. is more concerned with the business interests of major publishers, than the rights of the people who make publishing possible. Do not of these people realise that without creators there would be nothing to publish?
Pete Jenkins
www.petejenkinsphotothoughts.blogspot.com/
Member of: The National Union of Journalists
Of course "the BCC would prefer a solution which includes all works and right holders." So would creators. However, this is NOT synonymous with imposing the SAME solution onto all creators and rights holders, which this proposal attempts.
It's clear that different media require different treatment because of their differing uses and value chains. Creators such as photographers, music producers and others recognise this and are adamant that proper consideration be given to these differences - they do NOT want a one-size-fits-all straitjacket applied to them.
According to their members list:
<http: /
of the BCC's 31 members, only three represent creators of photographs. There are in total ten members who represent freelance creators, three of whom (BECTU, NUJ and MU) represent employees as well as freelancers, and whose loyalties are therefore split between protecting the rights of freelancers and the jobs of employees of media companies.
The 21 other members represent agents, aggregators, marketers and middlemen - organisations that profit from the creations of others. The Clause 43- like Orphan Works and Extended Collective Licensing provisions in the BCC's proposal would work in these members' favour - which is why some of them have been shown to have lobbied in favour of Clause 43:
<http: /
Furthermore, in a reprise of Clause 43 and DEB, the BCC proposal contains a "Henry VIII clause" that enables a Secretary of State by regulation subsequently to amend this legislation, and thereby change or extend its scope without recourse to normal Parliamentary process.
So it's no wonder that 2/3 of the BCC membership are in favour and only some of the other third definitely against OW commercialisation, and that the majority view has carried the day at the BCC.
It is rather disappointing that the BCC chose such a furtive way of going about its business by circulating a confidential draft on a Friday for discussion the following Monday, to a group of photographic organisations some of whom were known not to be attending that meeting, such as BCC members the AoP and BIPP.
Furtive dealing and sleight of hand such as this characterised the whole Clause 43 DEB campaign, so I suppose we should expect it all again. After all, as Stop43 demonstrated, the majority BCC argument is NOT in creators' interests, but amounts to special pleading in the interests of those who stand to make or save a great deal of money should their proposal become legislation.
Stop43 cannot countenance any commercialisation of orphan photographs, and any use whatsoever to be made of orphans without first granting inalienable Moral Rights in all media for all uses to photographers. This is also known to be the BIPP and AoP's position, and we are confident that they will uphold it at any BCC meeting.
Due diligence a flawed concept
There is another aspect to all this that is being overlooked by just about everybody. How OWs affects archives, particularly where those archives contain material that has been made available for personal use only by the previous owners.
Working at the enthusiast end of the market I supply prints to collectors, something that has been going on for the last 70 odd years (by others,not by me!). Of the 300,000+ original negs and txs with IP rights attached in my archive, some 80,000 are currently available for sale from my web site – and yet at least one museum says they couldn’t find me so they digitised anyway and started trading my prints. A simple Google search for the registrations would have found me.
If nothing else, this demonstrates the futility of any proposals involving “due diligence”. It just ain’t going to work brother! There are simply too many photographs in existence world wide to make finding that one particular one you are looking for anything more than pure blind chance. The owner could be anywhere on the planet and any nationality.
I see my aircraft photographs appearing on a Scandinavian government web site because as far as they are concerned I don’t exist – not being Norwegian!
So how does anybody search for the owner of photo if you don’t know what language the owner’s catalogue might be in? Do we have to start asserting our rights? What about all those amateur photographers and camera-phone users?
I would suggest that the situation is already out of control and the present review (as far as photographs is concerned) is really about protecting the big boys from litigation from rights holders – nothing more.
Related Articles
BJP Daily
Most Popular Articles
Photographers to launch digital light meter [update]
Updating your subscription status
About us

British Journal of Photography is the world’s longest running photography magazine, established in 1854, and online since 1997. A high-quality monthly printed edition is available as a subscription or from selected newsagents in the UK and around the world.
Jobs
We have a vacancy for a Senior Lecturer in Photography at Bath School of Art and Design
We're Creative Escapes, an award winning creative holiday company based in London.
Bonhams is looking for a full-time photographer for its sale catalogues
Popular Topics