Proposed UK copyright changes spark worldwide protests
US organisations representing photographers and photo agencies have written to the UK government to oppose proposed changes to the country's copyright laws making it legal to use "foreign works without the knowledge and permission of the copyright owners"
Author: Olivier Laurent
20 Nov 2012 Tags: Copyright
The American Society of Media Photographers, Professional Photographers of America, National Press Photographers Association, Picture Archive Council of America, American Photographic Artists and Graphic Artists Guild have submitted a joint letter to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in the UK to express their deep concerns over the provisions presented in Clause 68 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill.
The bill, which was first introduced in the House of Commons in May, has been sponsored by Vince Cable and Lord Marland of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It was written to "get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy" but presents a series of provisions to allow the use of Orphan Works such as images that lack metadata and whose copyright owners cannot be found.
The bill is expected to reach the committee stage in the House of Lords on 03 December, but has already attracted criticism for rights owners, photo and stock agencies, as well as photographers who fear that the provisions will make it legal to use images without authorisation from copyright owners.
The US-based organisations representing photographers write: "Legalising the usage of foreign works without the knowledge and permission of the copyright owners will jeopardize the exclusive rights of those owners. The prospect of unknown, ongoing unlicensed usage of foreign works in the UK will prevent any rights holder in any country from licensing exclusive rights to any party. In many instances, unlicensed usage of foreign work in the UK will drastically devalue the works throughout their copyright life."
BJP understands that photographers in other countries are also considering writing to the UK government to oppose the changes.
"If the use of foreign works in the UK is directly or indirectly permitted by this bill, a firestorm of international litigation is predicted," say the US-based organisations. "The executives of the six organizations warn that any individuals or businesses making use of foreign works under this bill can expect to be sued promptly by the copyright holders."
They add: "ASMP, PPA, NPPA, PACA, APA and GAG believe that while a solution to the Orphan Works challenge must be found, this bill permitting legalised infringement of foreign works and injecting foreign works into a UK Extended Collective Licensing scheme creates more problems than it solves. The organizations call on the UK government to work with stakeholders to redraft the bill in order to protect and maintain the exclusive rights of foreign copyright holders."
Read the full letter here [PDF link].
Comments
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!
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!!!!!
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
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
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
Related Articles
BJP Daily
Most Popular Articles
12 photographers selected for 2013 World Press Photo's Joop Swart Masterclass
VII Photo's CEO Stephen Mayes resigns
Don McCullin to headline Visa pour l'Image's 25th edition
EyeEm photo-sharing app aims to enable photographers to sell their images
Hasselblad puts an end to its V line of cameras
Controversial copyright framework receives Royal Assent [Update: 01 May]
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
Key Account Manager
We have a vacancy for a Key Account Manager working on The British Journal of Photography
Head of Photography
Magnet Harlequin, one of the UK's leading Creative Production Agencies is seeking a new Head of Photography.
Photographic technical support officers
We have opportunities for two experienced photographic, audio or video technicians.
Popular Topics
