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.