UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
grand
weltweit
Well-Known Member
They're only really reporting that there is a row. I don't often sympathise with the Intellectual Property Office, but when it comes to having to wheel out patient explanations without actually saying "look, Ellis isn't sane in the sense you or I understand the word"...
editor
hiraethified
Good piece in PC Pro:
More: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/enterpr...-alarm-over-social-media-photos-not-justified
It is going to be qualified. It will be based on this: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/hleg/orphan/mou.pdf
Sorry, no time to summarise right now.
RoyReed
Must fly!
It says:
And then goes on to list the signatories.
It doesn't say what due diligence actually entails.
Beg pardon: it refers to the guidelines here: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/hleg/orphan/guidelines.pdf
RoyReed
Must fly!
That makes more sense. But I can't see it being followed.
If it's not followed, you'll be in a better position than if a photo is stolen at present.
That is to say, if a body fraudulently issues a licence to use a work as orphan, you'll be able to sue that body, instead of the user.
And it'll be a body with (often) more to lose than the end-user; and certainly one more worried about reputation.
And if someone uses your photo and they have neither a licence from you nor an orphan work licence, then you have a strong case for aggravated damages for flagrant breach of your copyright. No-one will any longer be able to depend on a lie that they "tried" to find you.
That is to say, if a body fraudulently issues a licence to use a work as orphan, you'll be able to sue that body, instead of the user.
And it'll be a body with (often) more to lose than the end-user; and certainly one more worried about reputation.
And if someone uses your photo and they have neither a licence from you nor an orphan work licence, then you have a strong case for aggravated damages for flagrant breach of your copyright. No-one will any longer be able to depend on a lie that they "tried" to find you.
The "orphan works" bit is just the crack in the edifice of the law where the lobbyists who want to weaken your rights put the lever.
The more interesting bit is the "extended collective licensing" - and the scary bit is yet to come, with details of proposals to extend the circumstances in which people and companies can use your work (photos) without asking.
A Famous Web Search Engine continues to push hard to have the law changed to allow it to do what it damn well pleases.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Indeed, interesting ... but there are image search facilities which give the impression of free to use images, although they are not .. and although they are not I and many others use these works on forums like U75 like confetti. We should not really do this.
Hmm.....
Oh, that famous web search engine. Indeed, that wants to catalogue everything and make everything available, even when it is not theirs.
RoyReed
Must fly!
The UK Intellectual Property Office has issued a 'myth-busting' document about the effect on photographers of the new copyright law, Section 77 on page 68 (the bottom of page 76 in the PDF).
This is how it claims that the scheme will work:
This is how it claims that the scheme will work:
Ta. There's one new commitment in there - the "verified" bit.
Saw this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
Looks bad. Long article but
"Quite what happens next is not clear, because the Act is merely enabling legislation - the nitty gritty will come in the form of statutory instruments, to be tabled later in the year. Parliament has not voted down a statutory instrument since 1979, so the political process is probably now a formality.
In practice, you'll have two stark choices to prevent being ripped off: remove your work from the internet entirely, or opt-out by registering it. And registration will be on a work-by-work basis.
"People can now use stuff without your permission," explained photo rights campaigner Paul Ellis. "To stop that you have to register your work in a registry - but registering stuff is an activity that costs you time and money. So what was your property by default will only remain yours if you take active steps, and absorb the costs, if it is formally registered to you as the owner."
And right now, Ellis says, there's only one registry, PLUS. Photographers, including David Bailey, condemned the government for rushing through the legislation before other registries - such as the Copyright Hub - could sort themselves out.
"The mass of the public will never realise they've been robbed," thinks Ellis. The radical free-our-information bureaucrats at the Intellectual Property Office had already attempted to smuggle orphan works rules through via the Digital Economy Act in 2010, but were rebuffed. Thanks to a Google-friendly Conservative-led administration, they've now triumphed.
"
Looks bad. Long article but
"Quite what happens next is not clear, because the Act is merely enabling legislation - the nitty gritty will come in the form of statutory instruments, to be tabled later in the year. Parliament has not voted down a statutory instrument since 1979, so the political process is probably now a formality.
In practice, you'll have two stark choices to prevent being ripped off: remove your work from the internet entirely, or opt-out by registering it. And registration will be on a work-by-work basis.
"People can now use stuff without your permission," explained photo rights campaigner Paul Ellis. "To stop that you have to register your work in a registry - but registering stuff is an activity that costs you time and money. So what was your property by default will only remain yours if you take active steps, and absorb the costs, if it is formally registered to you as the owner."
And right now, Ellis says, there's only one registry, PLUS. Photographers, including David Bailey, condemned the government for rushing through the legislation before other registries - such as the Copyright Hub - could sort themselves out.
"The mass of the public will never realise they've been robbed," thinks Ellis. The radical free-our-information bureaucrats at the Intellectual Property Office had already attempted to smuggle orphan works rules through via the Digital Economy Act in 2010, but were rebuffed. Thanks to a Google-friendly Conservative-led administration, they've now triumphed.
"
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
That's the same link as was posted here on the last page!
Zaide Lemur
New Member
I just dont get the overzealous desire to restrict people filming or photographing public areas.
Boo38
New Member
My utmost apologies! I never realised this was so long ago, and my inbox hasn't updated, just sat there, ignoring relevant emails and generally just attempting to annoy me.
However, further to this farce, I made a formal complaint to the IPCC and my MP, who in turn informed the Professional Standards Department, a few other MP's in Parliament, and the chief constable for Hants.
Ended up having a face to face conversation with Chief Inspector Alison Heydari at a neutral location.
I had a third party with me to assist, A Mark Singleton the founding editor of "Scene that".
Anyhow, everything was going great until I recited the events of that night and how her two officers acted, when it got to me informing her that I had requested on more than one occasion to them both "what Law are you going to search me under?" and the reply being "under s.44 of the anti terror act" this was then blatantly denied ignored and dismissed.
The CI covered their backs by regurgitating the lies she had been fed by two of her officers and informed me that they had persistently informed me that the search was being carried out under s.43 of the Anti terror act, at this point, the meeting was brought to a close as she was informed that if she couldn't tell the truth then there was little point on carrying out the alternative dispute resolution, no defence or retort was made to this accusation, therefore confirming what she knew all along, in that she had been lied too, and had then been forced to lie to me, perfect proof, for me anyway, of how corrupt they really are.
However, further to this farce, I made a formal complaint to the IPCC and my MP, who in turn informed the Professional Standards Department, a few other MP's in Parliament, and the chief constable for Hants.
Ended up having a face to face conversation with Chief Inspector Alison Heydari at a neutral location.
I had a third party with me to assist, A Mark Singleton the founding editor of "Scene that".
Anyhow, everything was going great until I recited the events of that night and how her two officers acted, when it got to me informing her that I had requested on more than one occasion to them both "what Law are you going to search me under?" and the reply being "under s.44 of the anti terror act" this was then blatantly denied ignored and dismissed.
The CI covered their backs by regurgitating the lies she had been fed by two of her officers and informed me that they had persistently informed me that the search was being carried out under s.43 of the Anti terror act, at this point, the meeting was brought to a close as she was informed that if she couldn't tell the truth then there was little point on carrying out the alternative dispute resolution, no defence or retort was made to this accusation, therefore confirming what she knew all along, in that she had been lied too, and had then been forced to lie to me, perfect proof, for me anyway, of how corrupt they really are.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
...like the mushrooming of images/video that will come with the widespread use of Google Glass
Hi all, new here.
Actually, I'm not much of a photographer but had occasion to use a camera recently and the police were very heavy handed about the whole thing. I took *three* photos of boys who had been harassing my young daughter and who I've had numerous problems with in regard to anti social behaviour. I wanted to record who was causing the problems (as evidence, in case further hassle arose). This was in November, in the street, and the boys were wearing not just clothes but the full winter wear get up of hats and gloves etc.
The boys told their parents and the police visited me that evening. There was just myself and my daughter in the house when they came. They spent around half an hour asking and re-asking me to delete the photos and failing to clarify whether I'd broken the law. I counted at least 8 'requests' along the lines of "Will you delete the photos. I am disappointed in you not deleting them. Yes, you have your concerns and now I'm asking you to delete the photos... and on and on...) I thought my behaviour was legal so I stood my ground despite their threatening behavior. The officers suggested, among other things, I might be seen as a paedophile. I am a 49 year old full time mother, wielding an old Canon Powershot, photographing a bunch of boys in broad daylight, in a public street, and they suggest I could be seen as a paedophile (my 7 year old daughter was there the whole time this happened).
Earlier this year I had someone shoot out my front door and a window with an air gun (whilst my daughter and I were in the house) and the police didn't even step over my doorway when I reported it. One officer turned up, made some noises and was gone within ten minutes. This time, two of them were in my house for around half an hour, and they used just about every verbal manipulation trick they could to try and 'make' me delete the photos. When they left I sat down and cried for an hour - the experience was horrendous and has changed entirely how I see police officers. They were bullies, plain and simple.
I now have a complaint in to the local police. Of course, they say the officers did nothing wrong despite them also (weeks later) admitting I had not broken any laws. I just wanted to alert you all to there being people like me (with very limited photography skills and no long range lense) who are being bullied by the police about public photography taken in defence. Furthermore, as the police investigate themselves (and my experience suggests the investigators aren't bias free) redress is unlikely unless the infringing of our rights involves witnesses on our part.
The defence I was given for their behaviour was "They *believed* they were doing the right thing" and the investigating officer concurred with them. So, it seems as long as police officers hold a belief they're in the right we're supposed to just take whatever unfairness they dish out to us. Be warned, never deal with them alone and pass this info on to anyone you want.
Oh yes, I will never let another police officer over my threshhold. They aren't to be trusted.
Actually, I'm not much of a photographer but had occasion to use a camera recently and the police were very heavy handed about the whole thing. I took *three* photos of boys who had been harassing my young daughter and who I've had numerous problems with in regard to anti social behaviour. I wanted to record who was causing the problems (as evidence, in case further hassle arose). This was in November, in the street, and the boys were wearing not just clothes but the full winter wear get up of hats and gloves etc.
The boys told their parents and the police visited me that evening. There was just myself and my daughter in the house when they came. They spent around half an hour asking and re-asking me to delete the photos and failing to clarify whether I'd broken the law. I counted at least 8 'requests' along the lines of "Will you delete the photos. I am disappointed in you not deleting them. Yes, you have your concerns and now I'm asking you to delete the photos... and on and on...) I thought my behaviour was legal so I stood my ground despite their threatening behavior. The officers suggested, among other things, I might be seen as a paedophile. I am a 49 year old full time mother, wielding an old Canon Powershot, photographing a bunch of boys in broad daylight, in a public street, and they suggest I could be seen as a paedophile (my 7 year old daughter was there the whole time this happened).
Earlier this year I had someone shoot out my front door and a window with an air gun (whilst my daughter and I were in the house) and the police didn't even step over my doorway when I reported it. One officer turned up, made some noises and was gone within ten minutes. This time, two of them were in my house for around half an hour, and they used just about every verbal manipulation trick they could to try and 'make' me delete the photos. When they left I sat down and cried for an hour - the experience was horrendous and has changed entirely how I see police officers. They were bullies, plain and simple.
I now have a complaint in to the local police. Of course, they say the officers did nothing wrong despite them also (weeks later) admitting I had not broken any laws. I just wanted to alert you all to there being people like me (with very limited photography skills and no long range lense) who are being bullied by the police about public photography taken in defence. Furthermore, as the police investigate themselves (and my experience suggests the investigators aren't bias free) redress is unlikely unless the infringing of our rights involves witnesses on our part.
The defence I was given for their behaviour was "They *believed* they were doing the right thing" and the investigating officer concurred with them. So, it seems as long as police officers hold a belief they're in the right we're supposed to just take whatever unfairness they dish out to us. Be warned, never deal with them alone and pass this info on to anyone you want.
Oh yes, I will never let another police officer over my threshhold. They aren't to be trusted.
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
If by accident he had photos of the actual incident as it occured the Police attitude would have been "thank you sir"
or the feeble minded Police officer would have arrested him 
Anyway a similar thing happened to me when I photographed a minor traffic accident. Everybody was using mobiles to film the scene and I had my proper camera. PC plod came over and gave me a right bollocking except in my case told the twat to get lost. I then continued taking photos but concentrated on him, albeit I did not take any actual pictures of the twat.
Last edited:
uthikoloshe
New Member
Dot
Is that also good for north of the border?
Says here that the same principles were adopted by ACPOS: presumably they're inherited by Police Scotland?
Similar threads
