Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just thought I should bring this latest idea could easily become reality from the EU.  While everyone is still buzzing about GDPR enough to be aware that sometimes big bureaucracies and multi governments can do some really really bad things - hopefully unintentionally but results are the same.

This little bit of legislation could make GDPR look as dangerous as a newborn kitten.

For instance the removal of just about all fair use rules on copyright.  Making platforms liable for copyright infringement by users.  Having to pay to link to copyrighted material.  I will repeat that one.  Having to PAY to LINK to stuff.  So the BBC puts out a story about a photographer.  You want to discuss it on this forum.  You - or Alamy - have to pay money to tell people what you are talking about.  A fair few other nasty bits as well.

Now I admit on first glance with skim reading it is tempting to see the good bits - ie it will be much much much easier to catch anyone nicking your images.  Its when you stop and think you start spotting the teeth.  In order to be allowed to show the picture, you will have to own the rights to absolutely everything in the image (or have bought them). Clothing, accessories, brand names everything will be assumed to be copyrighted and will not be allowed to be displayed unless the displayer has all relevant permissions (and no fair use)

There is a tendency to shrug here - but it will in a stroke destroy the stock industry including Alamy.  All news footage will be a no-no unless employed by a big mainstream provider who can afford the licencing.  Editorial use photos will be out. 

Believe it or not (and I am struggling as the one writing) this post by me is not as hysterical as a lot of the stuff being shared about this new legislation.  I know from reading the forums there are several posters who actually go and read the actual texts.  I strongly suggest people at least go and look this stuff up to see what is being said about it as this could be real trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having to pay for links - great. But this surely doesn't mean sharing a link, as a link in itself does not contain copyright information. But if you look at blogs and internet sites linking to articles by displaying the whole article this would make sense. 

I don't think it will apply to news or editorial photography. Overnight ALL images of stars wearing designer outfits, politicians getting into a Merc outside a meeting or opening a bottle of water would disappear. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vpics said:

Having to pay for links - great. But this surely doesn't mean sharing a link, as a link in itself does not contain copyright information. But if you look at blogs and internet sites linking to articles by displaying the whole article this would make sense. 

I don't think it will apply to news or editorial photography. Overnight ALL images of stars wearing designer outfits, politicians getting into a Merc outside a meeting or opening a bottle of water would disappear. 

 

Agree. The law is being introduced to help Copyright owners not destroy them. I wouldn't get too worked up until the new regs are reviewed by legal bods who can work it all out. From initial glances, it could be a good thing but I'll reserve judgment until the experts are let loose on the details.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, vpics said:

Having to pay for links - great. But this surely doesn't mean sharing a link, as a link in itself does not contain copyright information. But if you look at blogs and internet sites linking to articles by displaying the whole article this would make sense. 

I don't think it will apply to news or editorial photography. Overnight ALL images of stars wearing designer outfits, politicians getting into a Merc outside a meeting or opening a bottle of water would disappear. 

 

10 minutes ago, Duncan_Andison said:

 

Agree. The law is being introduced to help Copyright owners not destroy them. I wouldn't get too worked up until the new regs are reviewed by legal bods who can work it all out. From initial glances, it could be a good thing but I'll reserve judgment until the experts are let loose on the details.

You would think so - that would be the sensible way to go.

However I have seen enough assessments to suggest that that is not the way its going and that yes it will mean paying when you put a link despite a link not being copyright material  and it appears that it will affect the way news and editorial photography works by making it so only the big boys can afford the necessary licences etc etc.  So the beeb and sky news, the guardian and mail will be able to show all the celebs etc - but little miss maisy trying to blog about her hometown carnival  using pictures taken with her phone will be stopped - and if she wants to put a link to her local newspaper which is probably owned by a big conglomorate she will have to pay to do so.

I am not going down the conspiracy route of the "They are trying to destroy the internet deliberately" but I can well believe in the "they may accidentally alter the internet beyond all imagination as a result of unintended consequences" route.

More reading from an actual MEP who probably does have a better idea than us of what is going on and why it is not a good idea https://juliareda.eu/2018/05/censorship-machines-link-tax-finish-line/

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

 

You would think so - that would be the sensible way to go.

However I have seen enough assessments to suggest that that is not the way its going and that yes it will mean paying when you put a link despite a link not being copyright material  and it appears that it will affect the way news and editorial photography works by making it so only the big boys can afford the necessary licences etc etc.  So the beeb and sky news, the guardian and mail will be able to show all the celebs etc - but little miss maisy trying to blog about her hometown carnival  using pictures taken with her phone will be stopped - and if she wants to put a link to her local newspaper which is probably owned by a big conglomorate she will have to pay to do so.

I am not going down the conspiracy route of the "They are trying to destroy the internet deliberately" but I can well believe in the "they may accidentally alter the internet beyond all imagination as a result of unintended consequences" route.

More reading from an actual MEP who probably does have a better idea than us of what is going on and why it is not a good idea https://juliareda.eu/2018/05/censorship-machines-link-tax-finish-line/

Julia Reda is from the Pirate Party- hardly an advocate of copyright holders. Indeed she wanted to weaken it substantially. So hardly an honest broker in this argument.

Beware of "assessments"- a lot of them were quite wrong on GDPR, and many of them still think images of people are personal data per se.

"Little miss Maisy" ownes the copyright in her images so where's the problem? I don't know what you mean about linking to the paper.

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

Julia Reda is from the Pirate Party- hardly an advocate of copyright holders. Indeed she wanted to weaken it substantially. So hardly an honest broker in this argument.

Beware of "assessments"- a lot of them were quite wrong on GDPR, and many of them still think images of people are personal data per se.

"Little miss Maisy" ownes the copyright in her images so where's the problem? I don't know what you mean about linking to the paper.

Little miss maisy owns the copyright on her images - but not the copyright on the lorrys, drinks/shops/posters etc all in the background.  To display these she needs all the licences.  It will be her platform that is liable for copyright infringement so it will have filters on uploads that block copyrighted stuff preventing her from uploading her own photograph unless it is of say a blade of grass. 
The payment for links thing is a suggested link tax - which has been tried in individual countries.

I am aware of the problems of assessments - but I believe that there is often a nugget of truth in their spawning and that this is a topic that should be discussed.  If it is discussed people including myself will hopefully be motivated to learn more and if necessary fight the bad bits.

 

 

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

Little miss maisy owns the copyright on her images - but not the copyright on the lorrys, drinks/shops/posters etc all in the background.  To display these she needs all the licences.

 

Even it this were the intention of the proposed directive, which it isn't, incidental inclusion doesn't usually infringe.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Even it this were the intention of the proposed directive, which it isn't, incidental inclusion doesn't usually infringe.

The problem is not the intention - as I said above I do not believe in deliberate intent I believe in unintended effects.  There seems to be little doubt that the mechanism by which article 13 would be managed would be filters - and filters cannot be set for incidental inclusion.  A filter will recognize say the coca cola mark - and will know that joe blogs did not create it - and so will block joe blogs photograph which happens to be of a butterfly sat on a coke bottle.  The coke mark is incidental but it will be blocked anyway.

The legislation is at the moment poorly written - there are a significant number of MEPs and some big net names who are concerned not with the idea per se but with the methods it looks like will be involved. 

  • 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.