Jump to content

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, losdemas said:

 

Yes I saw that too. This could either be a really good thing, a really bad thing or make absolutely no difference at all for stock agencies and contributors: https://petapixel.com/2018/06/23/article-13-in-the-eu-what-does-it-mean-for-photos/

 

Would, for example, Alamy start going after Alamy images put on Facebook?

 

Edited by Matt Ashmore
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

Yes I saw that too. This could either be a really good thing, a really bad thing or make absolutely no difference at all for stock agencies and contributors: https://petapixel.com/2018/06/23/article-13-in-the-eu-what-does-it-mean-for-photos/

 

Would, for example, Alamy start going after Alamy images put on Facebook? 

 

 

I think that Alamy would be tempted to continue in the same old fashion.  Facebook however, would have to get its act together and ensure that all material on its platforms conforms to existing copyright law or risk legal action. Now...that's where it gets tricky!  If the images were, for example, watermarked Alamy images, and Alamy were being reticent to act, then maybe the original photographer would be within their rights to legally oblige Alamy to act?

 

Interesting, but I can't see anything happening for a good long while.  If these platforms can get away with - well, I'm not going to make a list, but all the foulness that can exist, that they justify under the banner of 'free speech', then they'll be fighting this for years yet.

Edited by losdemas
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problems will be that it will not be Alamy expected to go after Alamys images it will be the EU using image recognition software and then fining platforms like facebook who are big and ugly enough to look after themselves but also the smaller blogs who are not - and who are likely to reduce or even stop their use of legitimate images due to being unable to afford fines or defence when image recognition decide the images are not legitimate. 

This is also likely to apply to the sharing of links - so forget linking to your nice carefully arranged portfolio.

Of course back in the real world what will happen is the big companies will simply move or appear to move operations outside the EU and most people living there will be asking that bright young lad down the road to set them up a VPN so it appears they are using the internet from outside and things will continue as before.

Handled well this was an opportunity for the EU to close so horrible loopholes and improve things - it has not been handled well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

The problems will be that it will not be Alamy expected to go after Alamys images it will be the EU using image recognition software and then fining platforms like facebook who are big and ugly enough to look after themselves but also the smaller blogs who are not - and who are likely to reduce or even stop their use of legitimate images due to being unable to afford fines or defence when image recognition decide the images are not legitimate. 

This is also likely to apply to the sharing of links - so forget linking to your nice carefully arranged portfolio.

Of course back in the real world what will happen is the big companies will simply move or appear to move operations outside the EU and most people living there will be asking that bright young lad down the road to set them up a VPN so it appears they are using the internet from outside and things will continue as before.

Handled well this was an opportunity for the EU to close so horrible loopholes and improve things - it has not been handled well.

Wrong in almost every respect.

Licensing would be done by CMOs (such as our favourite DACS), not by the "EU" which isn't going to be "fining" anyone. When I get an infringement settlement it's not a "fine".

Links are expressly excluded- it's settled EU law that pure links do not infringe. Any large company needs a presence in the EU so they're not going to decamp- they're going to comply.

It's odd to hear an IP creator arguing against the protection of IP. This is something that our own parliament wasn't interested in standing up for- not everything emanating from Europe is the work of the Devil, you know.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

 

It's odd to hear an IP creator arguing against the protection of IP.

 

I think the concern would be that the market, the pool of potential buyers, would shrink because smaller buyers would struggle/find it expensive to prove that their content is legitimate and licensed and hence would no longer bother.

 

This is an interesting video on the subject. It suggests that at the end of the day, the winners from this are the likes of Google who actually would then sell software to identify content that can/can't be used.

 

 

Edited by Matt Ashmore
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

I think the concern would be that the market, the pool of potential buyers, would shrink because smaller buyers would struggle/find it expensive to prove that their content is legitimate and licensed and hence would no longer bother.

 

 

I don't buy that argument. If you have a licence, you have a licence. The complainant has to prove you don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Wrong in almost every respect.

Licensing would be done by CMOs (such as our favourite DACS), not by the "EU" which isn't going to be "fining" anyone. When I get an infringement settlement it's not a "fine".

Links are expressly excluded- it's settled EU law that pure links do not infringe. Any large company needs a presence in the EU so they're not going to decamp- they're going to comply.

It's odd to hear an IP creator arguing against the protection of IP.

I spent too long as site builder and user and know it both ways.   If users of IP are scared off because of draconian rulings they fear they cannot comply with then IP creators will find their incomes dropping as nobody is buying.  Except for the big boys who can of course buy in such bulk they can squeeze the prices further.  You think the bulk discount is bad now - it could be about to get much worse.

I totally accept that there are some serious omissions in current copyright law and enforcement and they do need tightening up.  I even accept that that is what the EU is trying to do with the best of intentions.  However the best of intentions does not mean something will work as intended - and the way this is being implemented and designed is likely to result in significant unintended damage to the building and using of sites and/or simply be that unenforceable it changes nothing (you want to be a fantacist try dreaming of effective laws that actually do what they are supposed to and are enforceable)

Unfortunately, as with many things the EU does the brunt of the damage is going to be too small individual startups making them less able to compete and there is a danger it strangles hobby blogging and site-building altogether.  Or it will do what the GDPR legislation did and make little impact on the problem it is supposed to solve, annoy the hell out of ordinary people, and then be ignored.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spacecadet said:

I don't buy that argument. If you have a licence, you have a licence. The complainant has to prove you don't.

 

Suppose a company does a lot of it's marketing via Facebook.. has an active Facebook page where it uploads campaigns. Suppose Facebook implement filters that now blocks that company's uploads because the filter rightly/wrongly decides that images contained in the upload are copyrighted.  .... you don't even get to the stage where the complainant has to prove things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

Suppose a company does a lot of it's marketing via Facebook.. has an active Facebook page where it uploads campaigns. Suppose Facebook implement filters that now blocks that company's uploads because the filter rightly/wrongly decides that images contained in the upload are copyrighted.  .... you don't even get to the stage where the complainant has to prove things.

If the filter's right, fair enough. If it's wrong, you get it reinstated. FB already removes material on a takedown notice and you have to prove your case. This tilts the balance back in favour of the IP creator.

BTW, the term is "copyright".

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

Suppose a company does a lot of it's marketing via Facebook.. has an active Facebook page where it uploads campaigns. Suppose Facebook implement filters that now blocks that company's uploads because the filter rightly/wrongly decides that images contained in the upload are copyrighted.  .... you don't even get to the stage where the complainant has to prove things.

And add to that editorial content where there is a coke cola lorry driving past in the background of what you shot for news - and the filters are going to block the news image because it does not have a licence from coke - by the time it is sorted out that it is not needed the story will be dead.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's baffling to me the attitude on the BBC have your say.

 

It seems people are unhappy about protection of peoples (copy) rights, because they think it will infringe on their rights.

 

As a typical user, I have not the slightest concern about what I post going forward - as a (limited) content producer, I am all for anything that potentially offers greater protection to all who create content.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

If the filter's right, fair enough. If it's wrong, you get it reinstated. FB already removes material on a takedown notice and you have to prove your case.

 

But that's the problem... filters are only as good as the logic in the computer code. And they will make mistakes. And you can't get "reinstated" if your content never got uploaded in the first place because it was blocked by an automated process as part of the upload process.

Edited by Matt Ashmore
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A large agency beginning with G which I supply have been very active trying to get this legislation passed, contacting there suppliers to email MEPS to encourage them to pass this law.

I am sure that they are only doing this because it makes good business sense and that they are expecting to get a (large) share of any revenue received from CMOs. They have also for the past year or so relaxed their editing of submissions accepting almost everything they receive compared to their previous practice of being very selective with submissions, presumable the more images they have online the more revenue they will receive, If it is good business sense for them then it should be of benefit to us as well.

 

Graham

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geebee said:

A large agency beginning with G which I supply have been very active trying to get this legislation passed, contacting there suppliers to email MEPS to encourage them to pass this law.

I am sure that they are only doing this because it makes good business sense and that they are expecting to get a (large) share of any revenue received from CMOs. They have also for the past year or so relaxed their editing of submissions accepting almost everything they receive compared to their previous practice of being very selective with submissions, presumable the more images they have online the more revenue they will receive, If it is good business sense for them then it should be of benefit to us as well.

 

Graham

Most interesting. Unfortunately my MEP is a Brexiteer fanatic who voted against yesterday. He also voted against the tax avoidance measures. Hmm

Edited by spacecadet
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently it is now down to individual EU member states to approve the decision and then they have 2 years to implement it. So I guess we won't see anything change anytime soon. And it does sound as if the rules could still come into force in some countries but not in others.

 

Either way, it would be interesting to know if Alamy have any initial thoughts on how this will effect their business and us as contributors.

Edited by Matt Ashmore
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, spacecadet said:

If the filter's right, fair enough. If it's wrong, you get it reinstated. FB already removes material on a takedown notice and you have to prove your case. This tilts the balance back in favour of the IP creator.

BTW, the term is "copyright".

 

As a foreign speaker I am now linguistically confused. The form copyrighted seems to be in online dictionaries and used in what seems to be similar sentences. 

Please enlighten a foreign speaker. 🙂

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.