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?