Important: UK Copyright Reform

[exile]

NOTE: THIS IS FOR UNITED KINGDOM ONLY

Some of you may be aware that the government have been holding consultation on the reform of Copyright law in the UK. The latest report is now available http://www.ipo.gov.uk/c-strategy-digitalage.pdf and makes some interesting, if rather confused and self-contradictory reading.

What is clear however, is that the report is not recommending that copyright remains in its current state, but rather it be changed so that some groups, currently disadvantaged by copyright law, have their access to free reproduction of copyrighted work improved.

There is a petition on the PM website opposing this: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/copyrightreform/

I would encourage you to consider this and sign the petition.

[Mike]

I don't like the sound of some of it!
Making non-commercial use less onerous for
consumers, for example by removing the need to
seek permission and make payment for personal
use of individual copyright works

[Picture North Carolina]

I don't like the sound of some of it!

I'm in the US but still find this troubling. Could set a trend.

...for example by removing the need to
seek permission and make payment for personal
use of individual copyright works

Why don't you ask your local politicians how they would feel if you went into their front yards, dug up their garden plants, and planted them in your garden? Hey, it's not for commercial use, not being sold in a nursery, for your personal use only, so you should not have to ask. Same thing.

[Wazza]

Thank you Mr. Brown, I have signed. Don't like the sound of that!

[bigrob]

Signed.

[jpwone]

I'm in the US but still find this troubling. Could set a trend.



Why don't you ask your local politicians how they would feel if you went into their front yards, dug up their garden plants, and planted them in your garden? Hey, it's not for commercial use, not being sold in a nursery, for your personal use only, so you should not have to ask. Same thing.


I have just done a lengthy post on another forum on this subject and really don't want to repeat it. To use your analogy, if you commission me to plant a tree in your garden should I then have the right to come back and help myself to a portion of any fruit from that tree if I have already been paid to plant it?

I understand that the law change that is being proposed is for non-commercial commissioned work and for the subsequent non-commercial use of that work by the person commissioning it.

From a photographers point of view this would make very little difference. It is just another area to discuss and negotiate with your client.

If there is another proposal of a different nature to the one that I am aware of then my comment should be ignored and obviously I should be regarded as someone who has been poorly informed and who could not be bothered to do any more research on this. Which actually probably just about sums me up :)

Edit: Just read a bit more about the petition and I am still not convinced that someone has not got the wrong end of the stick. The petition description in particular states that 'gives it to people who have no relationship with that work' which was not my understanding of the proposed change at all. If I have got this wrong and it is the case that a third party would be able to use the work without the payment or permission of the the copyright holder then the implications for Intellectual property and copyright as a principle would be immense. It could be argued that for non-commercial usage the same principle should apply to software (some would argue that this should be the case anyway).

[LordBrian]

This not only affects uk photographers but if I read it correctly then I can create a website and use ANY photo I want. Yes if I can get hold of your work then I can use it. What is worse is that my site might promote, say, sex with goats which you may not want your photographs associated with. Scary stuff but I suspect it will be shot down by the WIPO.

You really have to wonder what planet politicians are on. :cry:

[SwitchBlade]

Have people actually read the .pdf in question?

First it's a proposal, which means it's miles from becoming an act of parliament and as noted sections people are jumping off the end about will require changes in European law too.

Secondly the changes are for non-commercial uses by someone who has legitimately purchased the item in question. It's aimed at clarifying in law the very grey area of "fair use". I.e. I buy a CD, rip it to my hard drive and listen on my computer. In some countries just the act of ripping a CD is illegal despite having legitimately purchased the CD. In the UK the phrase "fair use" is banded around along with the concept of creating a backup of the media in question should damage arise. What this proposal is saying is that you could buy a CD then do whatever you wanted in a non-commercial manner with the content afterward. The artists are still getting paid but there are no legal grey areas around ripping it to an mp3 player, copying it for the car, pressing it to vinyl to play on your record deck.

For photographers it pretty much comes down to you selling a photo to Joe Bloggs as say a print, and he scans it in to use as his wallpaper or re-prints from that on a canvas. Currently potentially a legal grey area under "fair use" but would be made fine by this proposal. Now as I understand it from an armchair lawyer viewpoint public display of a copyrighted work is not the same as personal use. I.e. if I set my projector and screen up in the street and got all my neighbours out one night to have an open air film night isn't personal use and would require a different license from the copyright holder. So displaying your image on a website promoting bestiality as in the above example would not be permitted by this proposal.

[Bobster]

There is a petition on the PM website opposing this: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/copyrightreform/

I would encourage you to consider this and sign the petition.
you know that petitions dont work, dont you?

it would be better if everyone who signed that petition, used a template letter and sent it in..

[SwitchBlade]

The petitions tend not to work usually because the set up of the petition is wrong by grabbing on the wrong end of the stick, such as in this case.

[LordBrian]

Have people actually read the .pdf in question?

First it's a proposal, which means it's miles from becoming an act of parliament and as noted sections people are jumping off the end about will require changes in European law too.

Secondly the changes are for non-commercial uses by someone who has legitimately purchased the item in question. It's aimed at clarifying in law the very grey area of "fair use". I.e. I buy a CD, rip it to my hard drive and listen on my computer. In some countries just the act of ripping a CD is illegal despite having legitimately purchased the CD. In the UK the phrase "fair use" is banded around along with the concept of creating a backup of the media in question should damage arise. What this proposal is saying is that you could buy a CD then do whatever you wanted in a non-commercial manner with the content afterward. The artists are still getting paid but there are no legal grey areas around ripping it to an mp3 player, copying it for the car, pressing it to vinyl to play on your record deck.

For photographers it pretty much comes down to you selling a photo to Joe Bloggs as say a print, and he scans it in to use as his wallpaper or re-prints from that on a canvas. Currently potentially a legal grey area under "fair use" but would be made fine by this proposal. Now as I understand it from an armchair lawyer viewpoint public display of a copyrighted work is not the same as personal use. I.e. if I set my projector and screen up in the street and got all my neighbours out one night to have an open air film night isn't personal use and would require a different license from the copyright holder. So displaying your image on a website promoting bestiality as in the above example would not be permitted by this proposal.

I have to say after reading the pdf it does look like the kind of paper a second year law student would submit but many a poorly conceived law has come from a proposal paper.

I agree that it would require changes to European laws but again don't think that daft laws don't come out of the EU.

On the whole I am not overly concerned but if it ever makes it to a Green Paper then it would be time to read again.

[Karl Johnston]

while the issue is troubling...I feel disheartened if its to do with photographers in the UK. If 5 million people marching in London protesting the war in afganistan/iraq didn't do anything to stop the war..then I don't know how 500 signatures (or even 500 000) will prevent anything.

[SwitchBlade]

It's not just photographers, it's musicians, authors, film makers, everyone who creates anything that would be copyrighted.