Photographers' anger at law change over 'orphan works'
5 replies, posted
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22337406[/URL]
[QUOTE][B]Photography groups have reacted angrily to new legislation passed in Parliament over the use of copyrighted material when the owner cannot be contacted.[/B]
Photographs or other creative works can be used without the owners' explicit permission as long as a "diligent search" has taken place.
Campaigners said the new act paved the way for the exploitation of images posted on the internet.
But the government said the act made "copyright licensing more efficient".
The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act was passed by Parliament last week. The government said it would support "the UK's enterprise culture and help make it one of the best places to do business".
But campaign group Stop43, which represents a [URL="http://www.stop43.org.uk/"]wide range of photographers and agencies[/URL], said the act was "premature, ill thought-out and constitutionally improper".
Veteran British photographer David Bailey shared this concern. In a note published on Stop43's site, he said: "Why the rush?
"A scheme, the Copyright Hub - a scheme backed by the government - is being developed to ensure that those who wish to find our pictures can not only do so quickly online, but also find the contact details of the pictures' owners.
"You are about to put the cart before the horse."
The full text of the act will not be published until Thursday.
[/QUOTE]
This seems pretty fair.
Below explains it better than me.
This is a scam, here's why:
You, the person wanting to use the image, must still pay a licensing fee, even if the owner can't be found. You will pay it to the 'independent body', which will then 'hold it' until the rightful owner claims it.
First off, this independent body is collecting fees for something it doesn't own. Secondly, where do you think it's going to 'hold' these funds, under a mattress? No, in a bank, where it will collect interest. Who gets the interest on these funds? Which bank gets to 'hold' this money? What happens if no one ever claims the funds?
All that's happened is someone realized there's money to be made on collecting licensing fees on 'orphan' works. But if it's an orphan work then NO ONE should have to pay a fee, that's why you call it an orphan work.
As long as it is not used for money making I don't see how it is necessary. The Fair Use Act exists for a reason.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;40472365]This is a scam, here's why:
You, the person wanting to use the image, must still pay a licensing fee, even if the owner can't be found. You will pay it to the 'independent body', which will then 'hold it' until the rightful owner claims it.
First off, this independent body is collecting fees for something it doesn't own. Secondly, where do you think it's going to 'hold' these funds, under a mattress? No, in a bank, where it will collect interest. Who gets the interest on these funds? Which bank gets to 'hold' this money? What happens if no one ever claims the funds?
All that's happened is someone realized there's money to be made on collecting licensing fees on 'orphan' works. But if it's an orphan work then NO ONE should have to pay a fee, that's why you call it an orphan work.[/QUOTE]
I'd imagine it's hell to pay if you're the one who deserves the funds too and try to collect.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.