Proposed UK law changes would ban street photography and permit use of orphan works.

[SuzanneR]

Suzanne: "... If they didn't have a website, I'd have to wonder why?..."

One reason is to assure clients their images will never be stolen,
one reason is to assure parents their children's images will never be stolen,
one reason is to assure the photographer (me) that his work will never be orphaned then legally harvested.

Funny, today, how portrait clients I see like that I don't have a website.

Of course, in this day and age, you'd probably be dealing with interns anyhow. Oh, well.

These are good points, and, in fact... I've put very few of my private commissioned portraits on my site. Still, I think to find and book editorial or commercial assignments is going to be tough without an online presence. I guess it comes down to risk/benefit.

No matter what... the definition of an "orphan" work needs to be more clearly defined, and publishers, advertisers, media still need to pay for their use, perhaps through a fund managed through copyright offices, of a work truly is "orphaned" and an author cannot be found. I hate the idea "well, we made a call and couldn't find the author, declared the work an orphan and just used it for our purposes" for free.

Screws writers, artists, photographers, etc. ugh.

[2F/2F]

"...in the name of protecting privacy interests. "

Here in the U.S.A., the courts have determined over and over again that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a place that is visible from public property, and that if one does not want to be seen or photographed, one should not be in a location in which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (such as anywhere that is visible from public property with a lens that approximates normal human vision). Is the legal situation different in England?

Commercial photography on the street here does require shooting permits, however (from the branch of government that "owns" the public property on which you are shooting). That makes sense...but "art" or "journalism" photography does not require a permit (or releases, for that matter). However, it is just the shoot itself for which one needs a permit. Once you have got away with an illegal commercial shoot, what you do with the pix cannot be punished by the law. It is not a law that has anything to do with publishing. It is simply a law that has to do with regulating traffic in public areas (and making a little income while they are at it).

[Rolleiflexible]

"...in the name of protecting privacy interests. "

Here in the U.S.A., the courts have determined over and over again that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a place that is visible from public property. Is the legal situation different in England?

We shall soon see. :-)

It is ironic that this proposal is put forward to
protect Britons' privacy interests, when the UK
government subjects its residents to a high level
of video surveillance in public places. One guesses
that protecting one's "privacy" in Britain turns on
whether it is Her Majesty's government that is
invading it.

[ajmiller]

"...in the name of protecting privacy interests. "

Here in the U.S.A., the courts have determined over and over again that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a place that is visible from public property, and that if one does not want to be seen or photographed, one should not be in a location in which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (such as anywhere that is visible from public property with a lens that approximates normal human vision). Is the legal situation different in England?


No, it isn't all that different, but despite statements by chiefs of police and government about the right to photograph on public land the officers on the street and security guards still take it on themselves to 'interpret' the law as they see fit and hassle photographers. Its the duplicitous nature of this that is concerning.

[Steve Smith]

Here in the U.S.A., the courts have determined over and over again that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a place that is visible from public property, and that if one does not want to be seen or photographed, one should not be in a location in which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (such as anywhere that is visible from public property with a lens that approximates normal human vision). Is the legal situation different in England?

No. It's exactly the same. The law uses the wording 'reasonable expectation of privacy' as you have stated it above.


Steve.

[__mark__]

Truly depressing.

[ajmiller]

"Intellectual Property Office clarifies Digital Economy Bill's impact on photographers"


BJP reporting (http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=873486)

Good to see they're involved.

[Q.G.]

But on whose side are they?

They reassure photographers, saying that the sole purpose of the clause is to allow musea to use the many 'orphaned' works they have in their collections.
But since when were musea part of (or taking part in) a "digital economy"?

So lets not forget the name of the Bill, which wasn't chosen at random, and worry!

[ajmiller]

But on whose side are they?

They reassure photographers, saying that the sole purpose of the clause is to allow musea to use the many 'orphaned' works they have in their collections.
But since when were musea part of (or taking part in) a "digital economy"?

So lets not forget the name of the Bill, which wasn't chosen at random, and worry!

I agree - I actually meant it was good to see British Journal Photography (BJP) were involved in the meeting and reporting on the Bill.

[Andy K]

I have received a reply from my MP.

Dear Mr K,

Thank you for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill. In November 2009, the Government set out a series of policies relating to Britain's digital sector. I support the ambition of this Bill, but am disappointed that it does not show more imagination. Very few of the proposals contained with Lord Carter's Digital Britain report have made it to the Bill.

The Government has neglected this crucial area of our economy, and my party recognise that legislation is urgently needed to safeguard this vital industry and prevent a slide from our position as a global leader in creative industries.

However, I am concerned that, in places, the Bill proposes old economy solutions to new economy problems. Furthermore, there is a lack of detail on how certain proposals would be implemented - with much still to be done through codes of practice and secondary legislation - and a limited timeframe for the Government to make this legislation law.

I can assure you that my colleagues in the Shadow Business, Innovation and Skills and the Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Teams are following this legislation very closely. They will continue to hold the Government to account on this issue and take every opportunity to ensure that the legislation benefits our economy as much as possible.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

James Duddridge MP.


Shouldn't have expected any better so close to an election really.

[benOM]

I've not had my reply as yet!

[Q.G.]

To what exactly?

[benOM]

My letter to my MP addressing my concerns, I think she may be to busy being on tv living in a council flat for a week.

[Marizu]

I don't really understand how the UK can permit the use of 'orphan works' without becoming a pariah on the international stage.
Would we not be subject to WTO sanctions for not observing international property rights?

[paul_c5x4]

I don't really understand how the UK can permit the use of 'orphan works' without becoming a pariah on the international stage.

There is (or was) similar legislation being pushed through in America. Quite how far it is from hitting the statute books, I don't know.

[garri]

Regarding the public shooting side to this post, if all photographers had to get consent of everyone in an image before it could be published, would this include moving images too or just photos? even if it is just photographs, there would have been NO press, web or magazine coverage of the winter olympics, sports events would of course be affected.
Most importantly of course(not from my perspective right enough!) would be that Mr Brown would no longer be able to get his picture taken at a press junket or public announcement as it would be impossible and impractical to get EVERY attendee to sign a release. Even if they could it just requires one individual to say "sorry" and thats that...a whole new protest strategy I feel. also the press industry would end overnight.

As for the orphan bill, could an image that is watermarked or copyright marked be classed as an orphan? I would assume the statement that the user must be unable to trace the owner would take care of that, if its watermarked etc the owner is clearly marked, no trace needed, if the watermark were removed for publication surely that would add weight to the fact that the publisher must have known it was not an orphan image, no?

I am assuming Mr Murdoch is in support of just one of these bills...

Gari

[perkeleellinen]

The bit about needing releases for all people in photos: years ago now, and I can't remember the details, but something like this was proposed in France. I remember seeing a frontpage of a French daily that obviously was against such a move - they printed a street scene with about 100 faces blacked out to prove a point. As far as I know, the French proposal got no further. It would be interesting to know more about that case...

[DLawson]

Regarding the public shooting side to this post, if all photographers had to get consent of everyone in an image before it could be published, would this include moving images too or just photos? even if it is just photographs, there would have been NO press, web or magazine coverage of the winter olympics, sports events would of course be affected.

The rules have many facets and contexts. There are, at least in the US, different requirements for journalistic use.

In another corner of my on-line life, I used to hand out with a guy who worked for CNN. One thing he dealt with was changing/removing pictures when moving stories from "news" to "archive." Many people can be shown as the looker's on at a news worthy event, but not for a last-month's news retrospective.

[ajmiller]

DEB S43 voted down (http://copyrightaction.com/forum/deb-s43-voted-down)


S43 of the Digital Economy Bill was voted out of existence in the House of Commons at about 11pm Wednesday, with the brief announcement "The noes have it". The Clause, which threatened overly broad commercial orphan works usage rights and proposals for extended collective licensing that turned copyright on its head, was dropped by the Government in response to opposition pressure. The rest of the Bill survived.

This is a remarkable success for UK photographers, whose direct action and persistence is responsible for politicians being forced to take notice of our concerns. For most of the last 4 months since the Bill was introduced it has looked unstoppable, even though it had to be stopped.

Thank you to every single photographer who wrote to MP's, spread the word, Twittered, blogged, emailed, viralled and argued in forums. Without you it would never have happened. We should all be proud of our community for safeguarding principles that few outside understand. This was never just a matter of money, but whose creative work photographs are, and the respect due to photographers.

S43 threatened all of this, and you beat it, with no more than passion for photography as a resource.

There are lessons to be learned, and for sure we will soon enough have to deal with other proposals for orphan licensing from the EC. Copyright reform is also on the cards. But crucially photographers have found their voice. Politicians now know that if they wish to legislate into our backyard, we are the people to ask first, not last, how best to do it.


You think you own your own photographs? YOU STILL DO. (http://www.stop43.org.uk/)

[Andy K]

Good news!