PDA

View Full Version : UK.Gov passes Instagram Act: All your pics belong to everyone now



r_a_feldman
29-Apr-2013, 09:33
From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

"But the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act has sailed through without most amateurs or semi-professionals even realising the consequences.

The Act contains changes to UK copyright law which permit the commercial exploitation of images where information identifying the owner is missing, so-called "orphan works", by placing the work into what's known as "extended collective licensing" schemes. Since most digital images on the internet today are orphans - the metadata is missing or has been stripped by a large organisation - millions of photographs and illustrations are swept into such schemes.

For the first time anywhere in the world, the Act will permit the widespread commercial exploitation of unidentified work - the user only needs to perform a "diligent search". But since this is likely to come up with a blank, they can proceed with impunity. The Act states that a user of a work can act as if they are the owner of the work (which should be you) if they're given permission to do so by the Secretary of State and are acting as a regulated body."

Randy Moe
29-Apr-2013, 09:39
I wonder how many here use instagram. I signed up but never used it. I do use Facebook, but may change what i do there.

Jac@stafford.net
29-Apr-2013, 10:19
Keeping your metadata data does not help with sites that remove it.
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2254536/study-exposes-social-media-sites-that-delete-photographs-metadata

Randy Moe
29-Apr-2013, 10:22
Makes this site even more important.

r_a_feldman
29-Apr-2013, 11:19
I wonder how many here use instagram.

It's not just Instagram -- it is anywhere on the Web. You are pretty much out of luck if your owner metadata gets separated from your image. Some sites, such as the BBC, routinely strip off all metadata, conveniently (for them) creating a new orphaned work that they can exploit.

Bob

Wayne Crider
29-Apr-2013, 13:54
I guess you can watermark everything and/or make sure file sizes are so small they won't print beyond a couple of inches.

bobwysiwyg
29-Apr-2013, 14:21
There's always steganography. :)

Randy Moe
29-Apr-2013, 14:35
Great word, I had to look up, now if I could just pronounce it...

Getting better, now I can torment my FB friends.

Thanks!


There's always steganography. :)

r_a_feldman
3-May-2013, 10:00
More information on the new law is at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/03/instagram_act_explained/

Jac@stafford.net
3-May-2013, 14:05
There is a contentious side to the proposal, I think. Correct me if I am wrong.

One of my younger brothers (now in his Sixties) published on the Web a scholarly work regarding Marcel Duchamp and it necessarily included images of Duchamp's work.

He received a Cease and Desist Order from some kind of organization claiming to be a protective agency for Duchamp's work.

Duchamp's work is so beyond any copyright that it is crazy!

Does this relate at all with topic?

Randy Moe
3-May-2013, 14:13
Interesting.

I hope I don't get such a notice.

15 years ago I did a reversal performance and image documentation of Duchamp's famous Pasadena 1964 comeback performance. It's on my Facebook page.

I link to his image, but copied in reverse his idea. I think he had it wrong!

I am most likely OK. Fair use in an Academic usage.




There is a contentious side to the proposal, I think. Correct me if I am wrong.

One of my younger brothers (now in his Sixties) published on the Web a scholarly work regarding Marcel Duchamp and it necessarily included images of Duchamp's work.

He received a Cease and Desist Order from some kind of organization claiming to be a protective agency for Duchamp's work.

Duchamp's work is so beyond any copyright that it is crazy!

Does this relate at all with topic?

dave clayton
3-May-2013, 14:56
typical UK, this law ill thought out and only people that will make use of it is big news corporations that like to steal work and consider it "news worthy" and gives em another string in the bow for not paying out.

welly
3-May-2013, 15:25
typical UK, this law ill thought out and only people that will make use of it is big news corporations that like to steal work and consider it "news worthy" and gives em another string in the bow for not paying out.

I wouldn't believe it was "ill thought out". It was more likely well planned and conceived without a shred of concern for those it affects.

dave clayton
3-May-2013, 20:07
I wouldn't believe it was "ill thought out". It was more likely well planned and conceived without a shred of concern for those it affects.

Or that typical self serving Condem bunch.