Jump to content
Peter Noyce

UK.Gov Stop Legalised Theft of Copyrighted Works - e-petitions

Recommended Posts

Can't do any harm - I've signed - only takes a couple of minutes........

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wording's too emotive for me, I'm afraid, and I don't think it's accurate, so no.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now got myself an official invitation to a meeting, so I can put some aspects clearly. I will not be skirting round the government's already stated intentions. This is a quote on a Government website from Richard Hooper, the director of the new Copyright Hub (funded with a mere £150,000 so far - not enough to make anything which actually works):

 

“linking to a wide array of databases and digital copyright exchanges, (it) has the clear aim of helping consumers, rights users and small businesses find their way through the complexity of copyright and thus allow them to license copyrighted works much more easily and at a lower transaction cost.”

 

Note the final three words. What business has ANY Government department trying to force a LOWERING of the value of intellectual property? I believe this contravenes EU laws, and that the UK Government has no right to act in a way to depress prices in a field where earnings and profits have already been damaged permanently. Fact, the cost of licencing copyright works is no concern of theirs at all any more than the hourly charge made by a plumbing firm. Government English used to be better - 'copyrighted'? My work does not have to be 'copyrighted'. It is my copyright from the outset.

 

David

  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go David K Go!  Absolutely right - hope your meeting produces some results....

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed earlier today. David K makes some good points! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, I think  'transaction cost' refers to the cost of making the purchase, like the fee you pay to accept credit cards or Paypal, and not the licence fee. You could clarify that.

Agree with the wordage, though. 'Copyrighted' sounds like an Americanism. I'd never use it. As you say, no need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Copyrighted' is one of the choices in the copyright status of the IPTC field in the metadata - told you I was pedantic - the red arrow is over here !    ------------------------------------->

 

You're right of course the copyright is yours when you make the image - there is no need for it to be 'Copyrighted'

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" and at a lower transaction cost.”

This seems double speak for " use it and if you get caught then just pay basic fee as you 'tried to find the owner'"

 better - 'copyrighted'? My work does not have to be 'copyrighted'. It is my copyright from the outset.

 

David

There is nothing in place in the UK to register copyright anyway let alone have it searchable as a google image search

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed and passed it on to other togs

 

Pearl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just signed it, it cant do any harm...

 

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

signed too !

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

" and at a lower transaction cost.”

This seems double speak for " use it and if you get caught then just pay basic fee as you 'tried to find the owner'"

 

 

Did you read my post? "transaction cost" means the costs associated with the transaction, not the money price.

It's in the encyclopaedia.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now got myself an official invitation to a meeting, so I can put some aspects clearly. I will not be skirting round the government's already stated intentions. This is a quote on a Government website from Richard Hooper, the director of the new Copyright Hub (funded with a mere £150,000 so far - not enough to make anything which actually works):

 

“linking to a wide array of databases and digital copyright exchanges, (it) has the clear aim of helping consumers, rights users and small businesses find their way through the complexity of copyright and thus allow them to license copyrighted works much more easily and at a lower transaction cost.”

 

Note the final three words. What business has ANY Government department trying to force a LOWERING of the value of intellectual property? I believe this contravenes EU laws, and that the UK Government has no right to act in a way to depress prices in a field where earnings and profits have already been damaged permanently. Fact, the cost of licencing copyright works is no concern of theirs at all any more than the hourly charge made by a plumbing firm. Government English used to be better - 'copyrighted'? My work does not have to be 'copyrighted'. It is my copyright from the outset.

 

David

 

I think a little clarification might go a long way here.  If "lower transaction cost" is a inarticulate reference to the kinds of challenges (and therefore cost) that wedding photographers have trying to license music to go with a set of photographs, then I agree with you, David.  But, if they really mean they want to make it easier to license images, and in so doing reduce total cost, this might end up being helpful.

 

For this initiative to succeed, image search capabilities have to be at least as capable as the databases and other technology they're talking about, otherwise it's doomed to fail.  I know many are sensitive about Google (there are times when their ways seem to suggest Google is still living in the old Wild West), but they have pulled off a minor miracle in getting almost everyone to "google" every time they want to find something.  And the search technology is good.  Just imagine Google becoming your best friend...

 

One development that should be borne in mind is PicScout/ImageExchange, where the idea is that a buyer can use ImageExchange to find the sites from which a given image can be licensed - for a fee to the licensor.  Guess who wants a nibble from every license, even if you do not submit to them...  I much prefer the competing proposal from the PLUS coalition, and I'm expecting a bit of a shoot-out, for obvious reasons...

 

Regards

Lionel

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it could be that DeptBizInnovSkill is actually on the side of creators and has something against middlemen - Alamy, if you like, does impose a 100% 'transaction cost' by taking a 50% commission. However, given the informal language of the text I was quoting, I don't think reference definitions of the term are involved. He might as well have said 'make it cheaper'.

 

Now if the argument had been a need to reduce administrative time and wasted research hours currently spent trying to track down copyright owners, not so bad. I don't see how the 'transaction cost' even if treated in the context of the difference between one-off and subscription or bulk licences is anything to concern The Copyright Hub.

 

One possible outcome of this is that if you are registered with DACS and claim for photographic publication, the Hub may in future increase your DACS payment. Not all of the possible scenarios under this Act are bad ones. Another point is that it may spark off a revival in certain types of publishing which depend on material that can not safely be used (at the moment), which may in turn lead to more commission and stock income for working photographers.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have spend a lot of time for an article going to press, using TinEye, Google, etc. All I can say is - something better is needed!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've signed.  Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, a quote from another forum >> Canada is the primary example who have been running a similar scheme since 1990. This scheme has only granted 266 applications since it began >> http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/unlocatable-introuvables/licences-e.html

Interesting, the tiny number of licences and the relatively decent fees going to the collecting society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ian Murray

Latest situation in UK


"To summarise: A diligent search must be conducted for each individual work, the organisation must then obtain a license to use the work via an authorised licensing body (appointed by the government) providing proof of a diligent search, otherwise it is treated as an infringement. Someone cannot simply claim an orphan work that has no metadata, they must conduct full and proper search.
Extended Collective Licensing - This provides authorisation for collecting societies to operate ECL schemes. BAPLA has been extremely proactive in this area............... The response from IP minister Lord Younger confirms that as there is no collecting society for the photography sector an Extended Collective Licensing scheme CANNOT be imposed. We intend to ensure this is immutable."

From BAPLA

Edited by Ian Murray
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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.