UK Government passes act which allows use of work when the owner is found to be missing

[Bengley]

[url]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/[/url]

[quote]The Act contains changes to UK copyright law which permit the commercial exploitation of images where information identifying the owner is missing, so-called "orphan works", by placing the work into what's known as "extended collective licensing" schemes. Since most digital images on the internet today are orphans - the metadata is missing or has been stripped by a large organisation - millions of photographs and illustrations are swept into such schemes.[/quote]

Oh dear. Time to start plastering everything with crappy watermarks!

[Paul McCartney]

Wow this is hilariously broad.

If I take a screenshot of someones stuff, it's now an orphan work according to this and has no copyright applied as a result.

[Emperorconor]

[QUOTE=Bengley;42566824]allows anyone to use your creative work for financial gain without your permission[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Bengley;42566824]permits the commercial exploitation of images where information identifying the owner is [b]missing[/b][/QUOTE]

I'm sensing a contradiction here.

[Terminutter]

Does it only cover images, or does it apply to all media?
It's terrible either way, but it'd be fucking hilarious if it applies to everything and it's possible to strip metadata from games and films. (is it? I don't know)

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;42566856]I'm sensing a contradiction here.[/QUOTE]
AFAIK, some sites strip metadata and such when you upload. I think imgur does it for locational data, for example. What OP said and the act are different, though.

[Thomo_UK]

So does this just mean pictures and shit which has no owner information in the properties file?

[Bengley]

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;42566846]Wow this is hilariously broad.

If I take a screenshot of someones stuff, it's now an orphan work according to this and has no copyright applied as a result.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, this could be exploited very easily I imagine.

[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;42566856]I'm sensing a contradiction here.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but if I upload something to a website which strips the exif/metadata, how will anyone find out who to contact?

[smurfy]

Actual text of the provision

[img]http://puu.sh/4TiCn.png[/img]

So if the owner of a work cannot be found after a 'diligent search', you can apply for a license to use that work without their permission. Further detail on the process will come in the form of regulations

[ViralHatred]

I put the word out to my photographer friends. Thanks for the heads up.

[Noss]

[QUOTE=smurfy;42566935]Actual text of the provision

[img]http://puu.sh/4TiCn.png[/img]

So if the owner of a work cannot be found after a 'diligent search', you can apply for a license to use that work without their permission. Further detail on the process will come in the form of regulations[/QUOTE]

so basically nothing like the title stated

[Skarr]

[QUOTE=smurfy;42566935]Actual text of the provision

[img]http://puu.sh/4TiCn.png[/img]

So if the owner of a work cannot be found after a 'diligent search', you can apply for a license to use that work without their permission. Further detail on the process will come in the form of regulations[/QUOTE]

I'd be pretty okay with this.

[Zally13]

Sensationalist headlines being sensationalist again, who would've known.

Anyways, the actual text of the bill isn't very bad, and as long as the owner isn't getting shafted if he's easily found, I have no qualms about this bill.